Court Opinion

ID: 9490154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:34:33.809236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:55.693128
License: Public Domain

LYNCH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. The panel holds that the federal government may not use the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3008, to enforce an order of restitution by a court pursuant to a criminal conviction of a defendant for non-payment of child support under the Child Support Recovery Act (“CSRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228. The panel reasons that a restitution order issued pursuant to the CSRA does not constitute a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA. I believe this conclusion misreads the plain language of the FDCPA and is contrary to the congressional intent behind the CSRA. It deprives the CSRA of much of its intended force.
The case presents a debatable question of statutory interpretation. The reading of the FDCPA offered by my thoughtful and respected colleagues is plausible. However, I think a more straightforward interpretation is that such restitution orders constitute debts under the FDCPA. The FDCPA specifically includes orders of restitution within the definition of the term “debt”. See 28 U.S.C. § 3002(3)(B). If Congress had wanted to narrow the class of restitution orders covered by the term debt in the FDCPA it could easily have done so. It did not. The panel opinion purports to find some restitution orders enforceable under the FDCPA, but not those restitution orders where the restitution may benefit victims of criminal offenses. Congress made no such distinction.
*135The panel holds that, the restitution order at issue may not be enforced because it does not involve funds “owing to the United States.” I disagree. The restitution order satisfies the definition of “owing to the United States.” The United States is both the formal owner of the debt and a direct beneficiary. The United States is the formal owner because the obligation stems not from the Georgia child support order but from the independent order of restitution to the United States entered by the district court. This distinction is also significant because the FDCPA excludes from coverage sums “owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States.” See'28 U.S.C. § 3002(3)(B). The debt here is owed under the terms of the restitution order, not under the terms of the support order.
Orders of restitution serve an independent purpose beyond defraying the cost of noncompliance with child support orders. As the Supreme Court said in Kelly v. Robinson, “[although restitution does resemble a judgment ‘for the benefit of the victim, the context in which it is imposed undermines that conclusion.” Kelly, 479 U.S. 36, 52, 107 S.Ct. 353, 362, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986). “Because criminal proceedings focus on the State’s interests in rehabilitation and punishment, rather than the victim’s desire for compensation, ... restitution orders imposed in such proceedings operate ‘for the benefit’ of the State.” Id. at 53, 107 S.Ct. at 362.1
The phenomenon of parents falling delinquent in their child support obligations is a problem of major public importance. In 1989 alone, delinquent parents failed to pay about $5 billion owed in child support payments, as the panel notes. In 1990, only half of all eligible custodial parents received the full child support to which they were entitled. 138 Cong.Rec. H7324-01 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1992). Congress responded by enacting the CSRA. The CSRA creates a comprehensive federal scheme which criminalizes such delinquency and subjects violators to monetary judgments through restitution orders. Efficient enforcement of these money judgments was clearly an important part of the congressional design. The interpretation of the FDCPA adopted by the panel will require the federal government to fall back on a patchwork of state laws to enforce restitution orders for arrearage in child support payments. This is precisely what Congress wanted to avoid in enacting the CSRA. I respectfully dissent.

. The government also has an indirect pecuniary interest in the restitution payments: public assistance makes up the shortfall in most situations involving unpaid child support.