Editorial: Securing needs of children

Wednesday, May 10, 2000 | 9:29 a.m.

The Nevada Supreme Court recently was confronted with the question of whether a Nevada law, which is intended to get deadbeat parents to pay their child support, was too extreme. The case the Supreme Court heard had its origins in California, when Stephen Ryder and his wife, Mary Ann, divorced in 1986. Stephen Ryder was ordered to pay $200 a month to support his daughter, but he eventually fell behind in his payments to the amount of $20,000. In response, a California court ordered him in 1994 to pay an additional $425 a month to start restoring the missed payments.

The estranged parents moved to Nevada in 1996, and once again Stephen Ryder had to appear in court -- this time in Nevada -- regarding the delinquent payments. While Stephen Ryder repaid part of what he owed -- $3,450 -- it still was well below the total amount. Although Nevada state law requires someone's driver's license to be suspended if these payments are in arrears, District Judge Mike Griffin of Carson City would not suspend Stephen Ryder's license. Griffin believed that if he were to take away the man's driver's license it could hinder his ability to continue to work. But the Supreme Court wisely overturned Griffin's ruling, noting that Nevada does allow the issuance of restricted driver's licenses, which allows people to drive to and from work, see a doctor and visit their children.

Legislators, so far, have been responsive and reasonable when passing legislation that requires garnishment of wages or, in this case, revoking someone's driving privileges if parents refuse to pay child support. These provisions in law indeed are drastic, but without them, there would be nothing at all to prod deadbeat parents into providing for their children. Indeed, what often gets lost in these cases is that the children's welfare is what should be the focus -- not the warring parents. Still, while the Supreme Court made the right ruling, before legislators contemplate passing additional punitive measures, they should ask themselves whether the sanctions are so severe that they unintentionally prevent someone from earning a livelihood, a situation that certainly won't help in getting support payments for these deserving children.