U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 11A— CHILD SUPPORT

18 U.S.C. § 228

Failure to pay legal child support obligations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Offense.—Any person who—(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000;(2) travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000; or(3) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than $10,000;shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).(b)Presumption.—The existence of a support obligation that was in effect for the time period charged in the indictment or information creates a rebuttable presumption that the obligor has the ability to pay the support obligation for that time period.(c)Punishment.—The punishment for an offense under this section is—(1) in the case of a first offense under subsection (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; and(2) in the case of an offense under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), or a second or subsequent offense under subsection (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.(d)Mandatory Restitution.—Upon a conviction under this section, the court shall order restitution under section 3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid support obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing.(e)Venue.—With respect to an offense under this section, an action may be inquired of and prosecuted in a district court of the United States for—(1) the district in which the child who is the subject of the support obligation involved resided during a period during which a person described in subsection (a) (referred to in this subsection as an “obliger”) failed to meet that support obligation;(2) the district in which the obliger resided during a period described in paragraph (1); or(3) any other district with jurisdiction otherwise provided for by law.(f)Definitions.—As used in this section—(1) the term “Indian tribe” has the meaning given that term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a); 11 See References in Text note below.(2) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and(3) the term “support obligation” means any amount determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of a State or of an Indian tribe to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living.(Added Pub. L. 102–521, § 2(a), Oct. 25, 1992, 106 Stat. 3403; amended Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(l), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3512; Pub. L. 105–187, § 2, June 24, 1998, 112 Stat. 618.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a), referred to in subsec. (f)(1), was classified to section 479a of Title 25, Indians, prior to editorial reclassification as section 5130 of Title 25.

Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–187 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, section consisted of subsecs. (a) to (d) relating to a description of the offense, punishment for an offense, restitution upon conviction of an offense, and definitions of terms used in this section.

1996—Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 104–294 inserted “commonwealth,” before “possession or territory of the United States”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–187, § 1, June 24, 1998, 112 Stat. 618, provided that: “This Act [amending this section] may be cited as the ‘Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998’.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 102–521, § 1, Oct. 25, 1992, 106 Stat. 3403, provided that: “This Act [enacting this section and sections 3796cc to 3796cc–6 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, amending section 3563 of this title and section 3797 of Title 42, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 12301 of Title 42] may be cited as the ‘Child Support Recovery Act of 1992’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 251 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: United States v. Robert Maloney, 406 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Robert Maloney, 406 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 14× “), sentencing him principally to five months’ imprisonment and five months’ home confinement for disobeying a court-ordered child support obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228 . Appellant contends that the district court engaged in impermissible double counting under the…”
United States v. Edelkind, 525 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 13× “DENNIS, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Jamie Edelkind (“Edelkind”) appeals his conviction for having “wilfully fail[ed] to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years,…”
United States v. Jo-Ann Venturella, Also Known as Jo-Ann Ferretti, 391 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 8× “WESLEY, Circuit Judge: Under 18 U.S.C. § 228 (Supp, II 2003), a person owing more than $10,000 in child support may be punished by two years’ imprisonment if she “willfully fails to pay [that child] support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State.”
United States v. Timothy Gordon Faasse, 265 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 7× “340 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 228 (1994)), to “punish[ ] certain persons who intentionally fail to pay their child support obligations.”
United States v. Monts, 311 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 13× “was convicted by a jury of two counts of failure to pay child support obligations in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act (“CSRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228 (a)(1) (Count 1), and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.”
United States v. Ira Kukafka, 478 F.3d 531 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 10× “Eight years later, owing over $125,000 in outstanding child support, Kukafka was indicted by a New Jersey Grand Jury for willful failure to pay his support obligation in violation of the federal Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228 . Kukafka was convicted and sentenced to…”
United States v. Gerald Black, United States of Am. v. Stephen R. Davis, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 8× “Davis were each convicted of one count of willfully failing to pay a past due support obligation, in violation of the Child Support Recovery Act (“the CSRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228 . Their appeals were consolidated.”
United States v. Kerley, 544 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “RESTANI, Judge: This appeal arises from a conviction of two counts of willful failure to pay a child support obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228 (a)(3). A jury found defendant-appellant Clifford Kerley guilty of failing to make support payments for his twin daughters in…”
United States v. Molak, 276 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 7× “So it is here: the appellant insists that the term “child,” as used in the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228 (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (the Act), encompasses only persons under 18 years of age.”
United States v. Bigford, 365 F.3d 859 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “Defendant was charged with violating the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228 , for willfully failing to pay a support obligation with respect to a child residing in another state.”
United States v. Willie A. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “1997), the court noted that 18 U.S.C. § 228 (b) authorizes the punishment of violators of the CSRA while restitution under that act is authorized by a completely separate section of the same statute ( 18 U.”
United States v. Keith Douglas Bailey, 115 F.3d 1222 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “DUHÉ, Circuit Judge: We consider for the first time the reach of Congress’s authority to enact under the Commerce Clause the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228 , which makes it a federal crime to “willfully fail[ ] to pay a past due support obligation with respect to a…”
Show all 251 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 228(a) — 1 case
State v. Land, 688 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
— 18 U.S.C. § 228(d)(1) — 1 case
State v. Land, 688 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.