Passports, Child Support, and the Child’s Right to Safeguarding: A Child-Centred Perspective on Recent Enforcement Developments in the United States
In my work as a Family Strengthening and Child Safeguarding Innovator and Parenting Ideologue in the United States, with a particular focus on the role and impact of culture (the dominant value systems within individuals, families, and communities), and in my role as a Court Appointed Special Advocate and Guardian ad Litem, I have worked with families and children navigating trying seasons of conflict.
These conflicts may arise from cruel or abusive treatment by one or both parents, or from conflict between parents, married or unmarried, together or separated, divorced or never married, where children become collateral damage on multiple fronts. One of those fronts is the failure to pay child support. In other cases, the failure to pay child support flows from changed circumstances such as loss of health, loss of employment, or other destabilizing events.
Across these situations, I have seen the impact of neglect, particularly the failure to pay child support on our precious children. It is in this light that I approach this conversation, with a commitment to presenting issues of this nature through a child- and family-centred lens.
Recent reports indicate that U.S. authorities are moving toward more proactive enforcement of an existing federal passport restriction tied to unpaid child support.
Let us begin with clarity.
This is not a new law.
Since 1996, federal law has allowed the United States government to deny, revoke, or restrict passports for individuals certified as owing more than $2,500 in child support arrears. Historically, enforcement often became visible when a parent applied for a new passport or a renewal. What is now being discussed is a shift toward more proactive implementation, beginning, according to reports, with cases involving arrears exceeding $100,000.
This development deserves neither panic nor applause without reflection. It deserves analysis from the only perspective that ultimately matters: the child’s perspective.
Child Support Is Not a Penalty, It Is Protection
Child support is frequently discussed in adult language, debts, enforcement, sanctions, punishment.
From a child’s standpoint, however, child support is simpler: it is provision.
It represents:
• food on the table
• rent paid on time
• school supplies purchased
• healthcare accessed
• stability preserved
In child-rights language, it is about safeguarding the child’s right to development, dignity, and wellbeing.
When support is unpaid for extended periods, the burden rarely falls on “the system.” It falls on the child and the primary caregiver.
Enforcement and the Question of Proportionality
The federal passport restriction program operates through certification by child support agencies. Once certified, a parent may face denial or revocation of passport privileges until the arrears issue is resolved according to agency standards.
Recent reporting suggests initial enforcement efforts will focus on individuals owing very high arrears, over $100,000, and affect fewer than 500 people at the outset.
This signals targeted enforcement rather than blanket punishment.
But enforcement alone does not strengthen families.
Family Strengthening: The Larger Conversation
Strong families are not built by penalties alone. They are built by:
• early engagement when payment challenges arise
• realistic payment plans
• mediation where conflict exists
• employment support where capacity is limited
• co-parenting cooperation
If enforcement becomes the only visible instrument, the system risks appearing adversarial rather than restorative.
A child-centred framework demands both accountability and opportunity for responsible correction.
Child Safeguarding: Provision Is Protection
Safeguarding is often discussed in terms of abuse and neglect. But safeguarding also includes economic neglect.
When a parent is capable but chronically refuses support, society must intervene.
When a parent is struggling economically, society must distinguish inability from unwillingness.
Effective safeguarding policy requires:
1. accurate assessment of capacity
2. due process
3. proportional enforcement
4. pathways to compliance
The goal is not humiliation. The goal is restoration of provision.
Parenting Principles: Responsibility Is Non-Negotiable
Good parenting is not seasonal.
Parenting responsibility does not pause because relationships end, careers shift, or travel becomes desirable.
At the same time, responsible parenting systems recognize that financial setbacks happen. The measure of maturity is not perfection, but responsiveness.
A parent who proactively engages the child support agency, communicates difficulty, and seeks modification where appropriate demonstrates responsibility, even in hardship.
The Deeper Question
Policies like passport restrictions force a society-wide question:
Do we see child support as a technical debt owed to government, or as a moral obligation owed to a child?
If the latter, then enforcement mechanisms must remain child-focused, proportionate, and transparent.
A Balanced Way Forward
A child-centred approach to this issue requires:
• public education about obligations
• clear correction of misinformation
• support services alongside enforcement
• dignity for all parties
• a consistent reminder that children are not collateral
A passport is a privilege of mobility.
A child’s right to provision is not.
If enforcement encourages compliance while preserving due process and pathways to resolution, it serves a safeguarding function.
If enforcement becomes symbolic punishment without restorative support, it risks hardening families rather than strengthening them.
Clarity on Immigration Status
This enforcement development has nothing to do with denaturalization or “targeting immigrants.” It is a child-support enforcement tool tied to U.S. passport eligibility, and it applies based on certified child support arrears, not immigration status.
For naturalized citizens, the impact is the same as for any other U.S. citizen: as U.S. citizens, they can be subject to passport denial or revocation if they meet the arrears-certification threshold.
For lawful permanent residents (green card holders), the situation is different: they do not hold U.S. passports, so this passport-specific enforcement is not aimed at them as passport holders. However, unpaid, or willfully unpaid, support obligations can still matter in immigration contexts, especially when seeking future immigration benefits such as naturalization, where willful failure or refusal to support dependents can negatively affect a “good moral character” assessment.
Final Reflection
Children do not choose divorce.
Children do not choose conflict, whether in a marriage, or in relationships that never became one.
Children do not choose litigation.
But children live with the consequences.
Public discourse should therefore rise above politics and remain anchored in one principle:
A child is not optional.
