- Suspension of driver’s and professional licenses, crippling their ability to find work.
- Negative credit reporting, blocking access to housing and loans.
- Passport denial.
- The threat of jail time for civil contempt, which the lawsuit likens to a modern-day debtors’ prison.
These punishments, the plaintiffs argue, are counterproductive, making it even harder for a parent to achieve financial stability and support their children.
Due Process and a Departure from Standard Practice
The legal anchor of this case is the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which guarantees fundamental fairness in any government action that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. The lawsuit contends that basing a child support order—which can lead to the loss of liberty (jail) and property (money, licenses)—on a fictional income is inherently unfair and, therefore, unconstitutional.
In my two decades of experience in family law, the process for setting child support typically requires a rigorous, fact-based assessment of a parent’s finances. In states like California, for example, parents must submit a detailed “Income and Expense Declaration” under penalty of perjury. Courts rely on these documents, along with tax returns and pay stubs, to ensure an order reflects a parent’s actual ability to pay.
The Georgia lawsuit alleges a stark departure from this standard, particularly in cases where a parent fails to appear in court. Instead of pausing the process to verify financial reality, the state allegedly defaults to imputing income, creating a debt machine that runs in the background. This practice of issuing orders without a realistic financial assessment is precisely what the plaintiffs argue violates the core principle of due process. While imputing income is a valid legal tool in some contexts—for instance, when a parent is voluntarily unemployed to avoid their obligation—the suit alleges Georgia misapplies it punishingly to those who genuinely cannot work.
