If you drive drunk in Tennessee and kill someone, and that someone has a child or children under the age of 18, you may end up paying child support.
That is if Tennessee governor Bill Lee signs House Bill 1834 into law. It has already passed the state’s House and Senate.
The bill states that it: “Requires a sentencing court, in convictions of vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular homicide and when the deceased victim was the parent of a minor child, to order the defendant to pay restitution in the form of child maintenance to each of the victim’s children until each child reaches 18 years of age and has graduated high school.”
The state will use things such as the standard of living the child was accustomed to, financial needs, and the resources of the child/children and any parent or guardian who survives the crash.
Additionally, a surviving parent or guardian can still file civil suit or get a judgment against the offender, if the driver is convicted. Any child-support payment granted as part of the case would supersede any existing child-support arrangements.
Convicted offenders will need to begin making payments immediately, and if they cannot because they’re in jail or prison, they have until one year passes post-release. If the payments aren’t all made when the child or children turn 18, they will continue until complete.
Cecilia Williams, whose son, daughter-in-law, and grandson were killed by a drunk driver in April of 2021, is the driving force behind the law.
“They will always remember, this is what I did to the family, you know, and it will sink into them. I can’t do this again. You know, I’m supporting children that aren’t mine,” she said to 9 News ABC.
At first, the bill was slated to be named after Cecilia’s oldest still-living grandson, but the names of two other children who lost a parent to drunk driving have been added, changing it to “Ethan’s, Hailey’s, and Bentley’s Law.”
Yet another reason to NOT get behind the wheel after getting sloshed.
[Image: Paul Biryukov/Shutterstock.com]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
I certainly support the idea of “actions have consequences” to be sure.
But is this the first step down a possibly slippery slope. It’s easy to target drunk drivers, but what happens in more run-of-the-mill accidents, the logic could be extended to them without much of a stretch, then it gets messy.
Have to say I agree with you regarding your concerns. I feel the same way about having your car taken after a DWI. Letting the government seize property is problematic on a host of levels especially in light of the historical abuses. I’d much rather see a huge fine (like $10K) and if you can’t/don’t pay, then the car is taken as collateral.
If you’re sentenced to life in prison, who will they come after, once your assets are drained?
In most cases your assets are drained to provide a defense against any given charges. Most “ordinary folks” are ruined financially by a criminal or civil trial. We have the best justice system money can buy-if you have money.
“until each child reaches 18 years of age and has graduated high school” There is a HUGE problem here – a high school dropout gets “child support” for life.
These are democratically (Repubicanally?) elected lawmakers with professional staff… they must have Twitterati for proofreaders.
Ah, 10k is so brilliant. A blip on the radar for a rich person, a total life-destroyer for a poor person. Is that what you want?
Great way to encourage survival crime.
The rich get away with murder for the most part. The poor guy will not pay the fine; they will lose their hooptie (just they way they would now in my state) and sadly probably their job, too. I just have a problem with the seizing of property by the government. Look at the abuses over the years…again not for the rich guy as the laws are written for their benefit.
“ But is this the first step down a possibly slippery slope. ”
It is. What’s the next completely random random thing an offender may be responsible for?
“If you drive drunk in Tennessee and are convicted, you will be forced to adopt a transit bus and pay for all the maintenance and its replacement”.
This law will be struck down. It’s amazingly dumb and short sighted.
I agree with the seemingly good intent of this law. Difficult to say for sure how heavy handed it is without reading the full text. Generally though, the courts already provided a remedy for such a tragedy. Just like before, you will never be able to collect from a deadbeat with no insurance.
One thing this law may do, is provide lasting consequence because child support is usually not dischargeable in bankruptcy. So while we all may like to see people like this being unable to escape compensating victims, it most likely has the effect of creating a debtor’s prison in the vast majority of applications, thus making certain that someone convicted of drunk driving/killing has a very difficult time ever reforming or re-entering society.
EXECUTIVE 1: We’re bit confused. Why was this man Jerry’s butler?
GEORGE: Ah. You see, the man who was the butler, uh, had gotten into a car
accident with Jerry, and because he didn’t have any insurance, the judge
decreed that the man become Jerry’s butler.
EXECUTIVE 1: Is this customary in your legal system?
Fascinating law; I think I like it.
But it’s a bonanza for defense lawyers who will seek new ways to weasel their clients out of paying, even if they can – and injury lawyers who seek more compensation for their aggrieved clients.
Up until a decade ago Tennessee would allow open containers everywhere, even in vehicles. “You’re impeding my right to have a cold one in my truck while driving with one hand on the wheel”.
It’s why the civilized parts of the country make fun of Tennessee. MUH TRUCK! MY BEER! MUH COUNTRY MUSIC ABOUT TRUCKS AND BEER!
Can’t say I disagree with this law.
While I am 100% opposed to laws that criminalize driving after consuming alcohol or drinking while driving, this makes a great deal of sense. If you can’t drink and drive responsibly you should pay the price.
Does supersede existing child-support payments mean they come before the offenders support payments to his /her own offspring? IMHO, privately suing for this in civil court was already allowed. One of the many reasons I carry $1M in liability insurance. Making the restitution/support part of a criminal sentence would mean insurance wouldn’t pay and under some circumstances would mean the family would be less likely to receive it.
So you drive drunk and know you might kill someone so you carry liability insurance to cover it? You are the problem with this country.
Many policies wont cover you if you were committing a crime during the incident. You do know drunk driving is a crime right?
No I don’t drive drunk. smfh
Oh yeah? Let’s see how selectively this one is enforced. I’m expecting the PD and local big cheese types won’t even be tested for booze when this one gets out in place. Drunk cop runs over a pedestrian, kills him. Other cop takes breathalyzer, swept under the carpet. This happened where I live. These sorts of laws sound great but the reality is far worse.
You think that doesn’t already happen now?
In theory, this has merit. But I wonder what the income level of a typical DWI defendant is. I doubt that he’s likely to be a corporate vice president who had one three-martini lunch too many; more likely it’s a teenager after a party or a recently out-of-work person drowning their sorrows, who isn’t capable of paying his or her own way, much less someone else’s.
You would be suprised. The most common vehicle for Duis is a Ram 2500. Once the good ol boy gets out of prison he can go work his “big bucks” blue collar job to go pay for his crime
In theory, this has merit. But I wonder what the income level of a typical DWI defendant is. I doubt that he’s likely to be a corporate vice president who had one three-martini lunch too many; more likely is the teenager recently out-of-work guy drowning his sorrows, who isn’t capable of paying his own way, much less someone else’s.
Wrong approach. Psychological research says that the likelihood of getting caught has far more deterrent effect than the severity of the punishment. Make it so that dangerous drivers get caught, every single time, even if all they get is a $50 fine. If they think they’ll never get caught—likely in our current environment where the police in most jurisdictions have basically decided motor vehicle laws aren’t worth enforcing—you can make the penalty the death penalty and they’ll still do it.
“you can make the penalty the death penalty and they’ll still do it.”
Completely false. If the punishment for not using a turn signal or speeding or not wearing your mask alone in the car was the death penalty, a lot of people would comply.
I’m sorry EBFlex… I don’t mean to flame you but you are very naïve. The death penalty has virtually no deterrent effect. The primary reason is that it never happens quickly. It’s a long-term theoretical. And the vast majority of people who commit serious crimes (including habitual drink drivers) are incapable of thinking that far ahead. By comparison, no criminal ever bothered the little old lady carrying a brown shopping bag filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash every day in one neighborhood in New York City back in the 1960s and 70s. The cash was the money from daily illegal betting. No one ever tried to take the money because they knew the punishment would be swift, certain and permanent.
dal, you’re right that the severity of criminal punishment isn’t the main factor in deterring crime, Psychologists tell us that much more immediate factors are the certainty of the punishment, and the promptness of imposing it, so that the perpetrator associates the crime with the punishment.
But I don’t think that question is the whole story. Also worth considering is, what’s the fairest outcome to the victim and the victim’s loved ones? Capital punishment for murder achieves nothing toward that goal, only revenge. On the other hand, this punishment for this crime provides actual restitution to the victimized family. At that level, I think it makes perfect sense.
I’d be interested in seeing how many of those convicted of DUI end up actually being able to make the payments. My suspicion is that it’s not very many, but I might agree with you if that suspicion is wrong.
Just to be fair, if she only kills a bus full of kids, don’t the parents pay her?
I get that the intent of the law is to further punish middle class perps especially, that put survivor low-income kids deeper into poverty, relying on welfare… instead of simply allowing them to sail off into the sunset.
Thats has to be one of the dumbest pieces of legislation ever to be proposed.
Wow, a state cracking down on criminals. That’s refreshing. Here in NY they reward criminal behavior. For example under the new legal marijuana laws in order to qualify to get a licencse to sell you have to show you were convicted of a marijuana law previously. So criminals get rewards in addition to being released without bail so they can commit multiple crimes each day.
Wowsers – sounds almost too crazy to be true- must be abunch of stoners in Albany.. But hey, what about the AG dropping criminal charges against Trump – what’s going on there?
I have a funny feeling that kcflyer’s information is inaccurate.
kcflyer, can you give us a citation for that information? It seems kind of improbable.
My reaction to this law is, why not?
Funny how so many people today who want the right to crap on others say “liberty” and “my rights!” yet dislike the companion idea that those rights come with responsibilities.
If you choose to drive a vehicle with a blunt 5-foot-high nose that prevents you from seeing directly in front of you, as we know a disproportionate percentage of these offenders do — or if you choose to be intoxicated or distracted while driving, which we also know many of these offenders do — well, you gambled and an innocent child and parents lost. Where’s the complaint about you having to face financial consequences as well?
Interesting logic.
The choice to drink and drive could then bind you, legally, to children who are not yours.
Does the offender then get a say in the child’s upbringing? Does the offender get parental rights? There is absolutely zero correlation between drinking my and driving and having to be financially responsible for children that are not tied to you by DNA or some sort of voluntary legal agreement like adoption.
This will be struck down by either the Supreme Court of Tennessee or the United States. Again, this is a incredibly dumb piece of legislation.
If a drunk driver kills a working man who supports his stay-at-home wife and his children, doesn’t she deserve the same form of restitution as her children? Does she not deserve to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed? And in that same vein, can she require the drunk driver to replace the “affection” that she has been deprived of, as well?
Alimony for your random non-wife.
Child support for your random non-children.
The stupidity of this law is truly staggering.
I can’t find anything that says whether this law would apply to all intoxicants, or only to alcohol. Will I *not* have to pay child support if I cause an accident that kills a parent while I’m totally swacked on some other drug? Even if it’s an illegal drug?
It doesn’t matter what you’re swacked on, and it’s a crash at that point, not an “accident” technically.
CammerLens-
Most states don’t stop at alcohol to define “under the influence”. And yes-that includes prescription drugs where the bottle states “not to use heavy equipment” while taking.
Here in Ontario you will get caught !!! 0.5 will cost you towing and storage, three day suspension, fine ,and 10 percent surcharge for 3 years on insurance premiums….0.8 or over you’re walking for a year. A blow bag in your car (you pay for install and monitoring $$$$$$$ )..$1000.00 fine, and insurance doubles for three years. That would be for a first offence not involving an accident . Legal fees $5 -$10 K…
I practice a very simple remedy ….An UBER app ..and $50. cash tucked away in my wallet. 100 percent effective !
O.05 and 0.08. It’s the blotto’d 0.15 people that usually kill people.
Again-hard to determine how far reaching the law can be without a full reading. On the surface-I don’t see the problem-just don’t drive drunk or impaired with a drug-legal or not.
I’m not sure I agree with this. Is there any reason why this couldn’t be applied to any situation resulting in a wrongful death such as vehicular accidents not involving alcohol? Why not manslaughter? slippery slope indeed!
(edit) why not ANY alcohol related death?
Good intentions is the asphalt used in the road to hell.
I want to like this law. I’d like a law that makes campaign donations illegal and publicly funds elections more.