The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was signed into law in 1975 ( P.L. The CSE program is based on the premise that both parents are financially responsible for their children. The CSE program has evolved over time from a "welfare cost-recovery" program into a "family-first" service delivery program that seeks to enhance the well-being of families by making child support a reliable source of income. Background

The CSE program is operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and by several Indian tribes or tribal organizations. The CSE program has at its disposal a wide variety of methods by which to obtain child support obligations. If a noncustodial parent is actually incarcerated because of nonpayment of child support, the likelihood of receipt of child support payments from that parent during the period of incarceration is very small. Laws concerning most child support enforcement activities are civil, but nonpayment of child support may subject a noncustodial parent to criminal sanctions in three situations: (1) a finding of contempt of court for failure to obey a court's child support order—contempt of court is classified as either criminal or civil; (2) prosecution under a state criminal nonsupport statute; or (3) prosecution under the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, as amended in 1998 ( P.L. Civil contempt occurs when an individual willfully disobeys a court order or rule. Criminal contempt occurs when an individual interferes with the ability of the court to function properly. Some commentators assert that although the intent may be that persons who are unable to comply with court requirements because they do not have the money to pay child support obligations should not be charged with contempt of court, in practice this may occur because some noncustodial parents are mistakenly thought to be able to pay and many noncustodial parents cannot prove that they are not able to pay. See Table A-1 in the Appendix for a state-by-state listing of criminal nonpayment of child support statutes. Many policy analysts contend that the incarceration of persons for nonviolent offenses, such as nonpayment of child support, is both wrong and counterproductive. They say that criminalizing nonpayment of child support by making it a misdemeanor or a felony disproportionately affects low-income noncustodial parents who, more likely than not, are just as poor or poorer than the mother and child (or children) owed child support payments. They contend that not meeting child support obligations is a crime and should be treated as such. Although many custodial parents agree, to a certain extent, that some noncustodial parents are "dead broke" rather than "deadbeats," they contend that the states and the federal government need to proceed with caution in lowering child support orders for low-income noncustodial parents and refusing to use the incarceration option. They argue that child support is a source of income that could mean the difference between poverty and self-sufficiency for some families. Moreover, having a criminal record usually lowers a person's job prospects. The lack of employment and continuing escalation of debt in turn greatly increase the likelihood that the noncustodial parents will be re-incarcerated for nonpayment of child support. They contend that incarceration as a penalty of last resort for nonpayment of child support is a logical and long-standing option given that noncustodial parents (like custodial parents) have a moral and financial obligation to support their children and not meeting that obligation is criminal and may have long-term negative consequences for their children. They note the fact that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have criminal sanctions for nonpayment of child support is not happenstance.
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was signed into law in 1975 (P.L. 93-647) as a federal-state program to enhance the well-being of families by making child support a reliable source of income. The CSE program is based on the premise that both parents are financially responsible for their children. The CSE program is operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and by several Indian tribes or tribal organizations. State CSE programs have at their disposal a wide variety of methods by which to obtain child support obligations. In addition, states under their own authority and the authority of their courts can use the threat of incarceration and/or actual incarceration.
Nonpayment of support may subject a noncustodial parent to criminal sanctions in three situations: (1) a finding of contempt of court for failure to obey a court's child support order, (2) prosecution under a state criminal nonsupport statute, or (3) prosecution under federal criminal penalties for nonpayment of child support. Contempt of court is classified as either "civil" or "criminal." Civil contempt occurs when an individual willfully disobeys a court order or rule. Criminal contempt occurs when an individual interferes with the ability of the court to function properly. Judges can sentence individuals to imprisonment upon a finding of contempt.
Many contend that the incarceration of persons for nonpayment of child support is both wrong and counterproductive. They say that criminalizing nonpayment of child support by making it a misdemeanor and/or felony disproportionately affects low-income noncustodial parents who more likely than not are just as poor or poorer than the mother and children owed child support payments. They assert that incarceration means that the noncustodial parent is not working and earning money and that having a criminal record lowers a person's job prospects. They also contend that the negative ramifications of being in jail include a weakened bond between the noncustodial parent and his or her children and family and a high probability that the individual will ultimately be re-incarcerated for nonpayment of child support or other infractions or crimes.
Others say that for some noncustodial parents, the threat of being incarcerated for nonpayment of support is not enough. For these persons, they say that incarceration is necessary. They contend that some noncustodial parents would rather quit their jobs, go from job to job, work in the underground economy (where earnings are not reported to anyone), or engage in illegal activity rather than meet their child support obligations. They argue that child support is a source of income that could mean the difference between poverty and self-sufficiency for some families. They say that children ought not to be short-changed because of recalcitrant noncustodial parents, and maintain that nonpayment of child support is a real crime and should be treated as such.
Using jail as an option for nonpayment of child support has many implications: Are low-income noncustodial parents who are unable to fulfill their child support obligations penalized for being poor? Should noncustodial parents charged with civil contempt of court be entitled to an attorney? Should noncustodial parents whose only offense is nonpayment of child support be incarcerated in settings known to be violent and dangerous? Should incarcerating noncustodial parents be eliminated as an option due to the high costs associated with incarceration? This report includes an Appendix that indicates that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have criminal penalties for nonpayment of child support. Table A-1 shows state statute citations and the maximum penalties associated with nonpayment of child support.