Court Opinion

ID: 9712109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:46:36.796758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:10.028159
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring with separate opinion.
In the context of the case before us, Indiana Code § 12-17-2-34(e) permits the Title IV D agency to order a license revocation or suspension only if the defendant is in arrears and has not “establish[ed] a payment plan with the Title IV-D agency to pay the arrearage.... ”
Clearly, the payment plan implemented by the Noble Circuit Court falls within the contemplation of the statute insofar as it concerns a payment plan. The agency could not ignore a court ordered payment plan and unilaterally order a license revocation. Therefore, if defendant here were in continuing compliance with such plan, the agency could not properly order a license suspension.
In light of the existing arrearage vis a vis the court imposed August 21, 1998 deadline for defendant to comply with the payment plan, the record reflects that defendant is not in compliance with the established payment plan. Non-compliance with an established payment plan is the equivalent of failure to establish a payment plan in the first instance.
For this reason I agree with the majority that the agency appropriately ordered the license suspension.