PROVIDENCE — If you are going to cash in, pay up.

That’s the message Superior Court Presiding Justice Joseph F. Rodgers Jr. is conveying to those who owe child support but want to cash in future payments due from the settlement of personal-injury lawsuits.

Rodgers began handling all of the so-called structured settlement cases earlier this year, after The Journal reported that a growing number of Rhode Islanders are being lured by late-night television ads to sell payments — which they are scheduled to receive over time as part of lawsuit settlements — in exchange for lump sums.

In some cases, Superior Court judges were refusing to approve the transactions, saying desperate people would forfeit too much future money in exchange for the up-front cash offered by specialized finance companies. The companies said they were acting responsibly while providing cash to people with immediate needs who often cannot get more traditional forms of financing.

In two cases Rodgers heard in May, people seeking to cash in settlement payments owed child support.

Take the case of William H. Whipple, for example.

Whipple, 58, of Pawtucket, was involved in a car accident, and as part of a structured settlement, he was to receive $2,056 per month from April 2002 through March 2012. But he wanted to cash in $88,457 worth of payments for an immediate lump sum of $68,750 from a company called 321 Henderson Receivables Origination.

Whipple didn’t try to hide anything. A form asked him to detail “why you want this money,” stating, “Keep in mind this will be filed with the court hearing your case.” Whipple wrote, “I need the money to pay back child support.”

He appeared before Rodgers on May 8. “Now, Mr. Whipple,” the judge said. “Do you understand that I am not trying to intrude on your own privacy, OK?”

“Yes, sir,” Whipple said.

“That’s not the function of these questions. The law requires a Superior Court judge to approve these applications,” Rodgers said. “I can tell you now, this is not a rubber stamp. So I might ask you a few questions that might be uncomfortable to you, but I tell you in advance, that’s not the purpose. I have to get all the facts I possibly can to make an informed and intelligent judgment. Do you understand that?”

“Yes, your honor,” Whipple replied.

Whipple, who is divorced, at one point said he had three children, and Rodgers asked, “Do you owe any money to welfare or the Family Court?”

“Family Court, sir,” Whipple said.

Rodgers asked, “Do you know the amount?”

Whipple said he owed $38,000.

Rodgers asked, “And what do you propose to do with these monies if the court approves your application?”

“Go down, pay them right off,” Whipple replied.

Rodgers said he was going to approve the transfer of Whipple’s structured settlement proceeds to 321 Henderson Receivables. But he told Whipple, “Get rid of that obligation.”

Whipple said he planned to do just that.

“But I just have to tell you,” Rodgers said, “if it’s not paid on or before June 18th or 19th, that will be considered contempt of court, for which you could go to jail.”

When he entered the order the next day, Rodgers told 321 Henderson Receivables to cut one check to Whipple and another check to Family Court to cover Whipple’s child-support payments.

In an interview, Rodgers said that when people seek court permission for these transactions, he is asking whether they owe money to any state or local government or agency, or if they are under any court-imposed obligation. “If there is any money owed, we want to be sure to collect it,” he said.

But there are limits to the debts the court will seek to collect. For example, one man owed money to a hospital. “We are not a collection agency for doctors and hospitals,” Rodgers said. But the court has a basis to act when there is a Family Court order for child support or spousal support, he said.

Rodgers said he recently spoke to the chief executive of a specialized finance company who told him that nationwide, state and local agencies had collected about $3 million as a result of structured settlement transactions involving his company.

Under a law the General Assembly enacted in 2001, judges must determine whether the transfer of structured settlement payment rights “is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.” Judges also must ensure that those selling the payment rights have been advised to speak to a lawyer.

During his hearing, Whipple was represented by lawyer Marvin H. Homonoff. But at Rodgers’ suggestion, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch has begun sending state lawyers to these hearings, and Special Assistant Attorney General Edmund F. Murray Jr. was at Whipple’s hearing.

Murray said he checks on child-support obligations if there is some reason to suspect a person might have such a debt. But Michael J. Healey, the attorney general’s spokesman, said, “Our primary role in getting involved wasn’t and isn’t going on a witch hunt trying to figure out what’s going on in people’s personal lives. It’s primarily to make sure consumers in a financially stressful situation know exactly what they are getting into when they agree to one of these structured settlements.”

While “our intent is not to sniff out scofflaws,” Healey said, “we are not being responsible if, in the course of advocating for consumers, we learn something and don’t act on it.”

Rodgers said he has handled about a dozen structured settlement transactions this year and refused to approve two of them. “I have found most of the proposed transfers are legitimate,” he said. “People are in serious need and companies are working with them. But they are in it for a profit — let’s not kid ourselves.”

Rodgers said he thinks the increased scrutiny has discouraged people from pursuing some of the more “frivolous” petitions. “Also, the industry is more aware that people are looking at them — the media and the court — and they are trying to do right by these people who have been harmed in the past,” he said.

efitzpat@projo.com