Dear Sir,

The proposal to revoke passports for citizens who fall behind on taxes or fines in your publication on February 23, 2026, was presented as a simple fix. But simple solutions often overlook complex realities.

In the United States, passport denial already applies to parents owing child support. Yet arrears do not always stem from indifference. In many cases, fathers fall behind during protracted custody disputes, after protection orders restrict access to their children, or amid allegations later modified or dismissed. Legal costs mount, employment is disrupted, and enforcement begins before full resolution.

If the goal is compliance, does restricting a citizen’s ability to travel — and potentially earn — actually improve repayment? Or does it deepen financial instability?

Public policy should distinguish between wilful refusal and systemic entanglement. High-conflict separations, parental alienation claims, and interim court orders create situations where financial obligations continue while parental rights are suspended or contested.

None of this excuses neglect. But expanding automatic travel bans as a debt-collection tool risks punishing circumstance alongside misconduct.

Before endorsing broader passport revocation powers, we should ask: How many cases involve disputed custody? How often do restrictions reduce earning capacity rather than increase compliance?

Effective policy requires precision, not just penalties.

OWEN MILLETT

Hamilton Parish