Sure, but none of that changes the fact that suspending someone's driving privilege as a punishment for failing to pay a debt is incredibly stupid and counterproductive.
There are people who think in very different terms, where the primary goal is protecting a moral norm they have in mind, and the focus (possibly even "obsession") is going to be doing that by exacting a punishment as a disincentive and example. Taking away a privilege is an obvious choice. Whether it's related is unimportant; what's important is whether it hurts. If the cascading effects are considered at all to someone who thinks like this (and I want to stress here that involves a level of analysis that may be second nature for you but is quite likely actually a stretch for many of the people I'm talking about here) then those cascading effects may well be considered good: the fact of making a debt less likely to be repaid is secondary to making it harder for the subject deserving of the punishment. The pain is the point.
Now, you might respond "is there evidence that this kind of punitive approach actually leads to overall better outcomes?" And that's a very good question, but again, it's the kind of question someone who cautiously approaches the question of punishment with considerations of counterproductivity in mind would ask.
But that's just me.
But I think it's probably a values/temperament issue, which isn't necessarily an intelligence issue, and might need different solutions.
In a country that values punishment over any empirical improved outcomes, I wouldn’t hold my breath for people to care that taking a driver’s license away for unpaid support will end up hurting the children involved, or society as a whole.
Sure, not meeting your responsibilities has to be dealt with and have consequences, but the consequences shouldn't have to be catastrophic and put you into an unrecoverable situation to act as a deterrent.
But say, if he hadn't been sent to prison, would he have paid child support then?
We all don't know, but I strongly suspect no, and I strongly suspect the court has more than just my suspicions and calibrated its reaction accordingly.
The amount could have been ordered to be taken from his bank account, or confiscated from his salary directly from his employer or payment system, or taken from his property.
There's absolutely nothing that necessitates that he is sent to prison if he merely can't pay.
Only if he has money and doesn't pay (and that after accounting for his food and rent expenses at a nominal minimal fee), or hides money that he could have used to pay.
Market solutions and the Justice system rarely intersect, and this is certainly an area where they should not.
Well, in these cases, courts shouldn't and mustn't do it. If the law says that, it's a bad law.