Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 32

12 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

traditional  enforcement  mechanisms,  many  States  also
use  civil  contempt  proceedings  to  coerce  “deadbeats”  into
paying what they owe.  The States that use civil contempt 
with the threat of detention find it a “highly effective” tool
for  collecting  child  support  when  nothing  else  works. 
Compendium of Responses Collected by the U. S. Dept. of 
Health  and  Human  Services  Office  of  Child  Support  En-
forcement  (Dec.  28,  2010),  reprinted  in  App.  to  Brief 
for  Sen.  DeMint  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  7a;  see  id.,  at  3a, 
9a.  For  example,  Virginia,  which  uses  civil  contempt  as
“a  last  resort,”  reports  that  in  2010  “deadbeats”  paid  ap-
proximately  $13  million  “either  before  a  court  hearing
to  avoid  a  contempt  finding  or  after  a  court  hearing  to
Id.,  at  13a–14a.  Other 
purge  the  contempt  finding.” 
States  confirm  that  the  mere  threat  of  imprisonment  is 
often quite effective because most contemners “will pay . . . 
rather  than  go  to  jail.”    Id.,  at  4a;  see  also  Underground 
Economy  C–2  (“Many  judges  . . .  report  that  the  prospect
of  [detention]  often  causes  obligors  to  discover  previously 
undisclosed  resources  that  they  can  use  to  make  child
support payments”). 

This  case  illustrates  the  point.  After  the  family  court
imposed Turner’s weekly support obligation in June 2003, 
he made no payments until the court held him in contempt
three  months  later,  whereupon  he  paid  over  $1,000  to 
avoid  confinement.  App.  17a–18a,  131a.    Three  more 
times,  Turner  refused  to  pay  until  the  family  court  held
him  in  contempt—then  paid  in  short  order.    Id.,  at  23a– 
25a, 31a–34a, 125a–126a, 129a–130a. 

Although  I  think  that  the  majority’s  analytical  frame-
work  does  not  account  for  the  interests  that  children  and 
mothers  have  in  effective  and  flexible  methods  to  secure 
payment,  I  do  not  pass  on  the  wisdom  of  the  majority’s 
preferred  procedures.  Nor  do  I  address  the  wisdom  of 
the State’s decision to use certain methods of enforcement. 
Whether  “deadbeat  dads”  should  be  threatened  with  in-