Clifford Hall from Houston, Texas was sentenced to six months in jail for failure to pay his child support. He fell behind and owed more than $3,000 in child support. His wages were garnished but his company failed to submit the money to the court for his ex-wife to collect. Hall has become current plus an extra $1,000 but could not avoid facing jail time based on a Texas law.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/dad-begins-jail-sentence-in-complicated-child-support-case/26639554
When making support payments (spousal or child), make sure that you have proof of payment. If you are making the payments directly to the other person, then keep good records of your checks or bank statements showing payment. This can also be helpful in the future if the other party claims that you failed to make payments. If you can’t prove that you made the payments, then you probably won’t get credit for them. Failure to pay child support can lead to a number of unpleasant consequences ranging from suspension of your driver’s license to jail time.
Showing posts with label incarceration and child support. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incarceration and child support. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
Child Support Owed to an Incarcerated Parent
Tracey Richter is serving life in prison in Iowa for the 2001 murder of 20 year old Dustin Wehde. Richter has been receiving child support arrears payments from her ex-husband, Michael Roberts who began paying back the child support owed after their divorce. After she had received $2,000 in payments from Roberts, a judge ordered that Richter no longer has any dependents and doesn’t need the money to support herself. The judge ordered that the funds be garnished and go to pay the $150,000 restitution that Richter owes Wehde’s family.
Roberts eventually received custody of the their children and moved back to his native Australia. He still owes approximately $45,000 in child support arrears and $60,000 in property and attorney fees. This is still owed even if Richter is incarcerated. Once child support is incurred, then it’s owed and you can’t get rid of the obligation. It’s non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and becomes a creditor against your estate after your death. So, just because Richter is in jail for life doesn’t mean that Roberts doesn’t owe the back child support. The judge made the decision here that the payments that would have gone to Richter because it’s back child support technically owed to her, will go to settle an existing debt she owes, the restitution.
It also should be noted that Richter currently owes Roberts $20 per month in child support under a separate court order. This current order doesn’t affect the amount of arrears that Roberts owes since that is already an existing and calculated debt.
http://www.kcci.com/news/judge-child-support-will-go-to-murder-victim-restitution/26416116#!Xc2pS
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/06/11/judge-orders-child-support-restitution-tracey-richter/10312483/
Roberts eventually received custody of the their children and moved back to his native Australia. He still owes approximately $45,000 in child support arrears and $60,000 in property and attorney fees. This is still owed even if Richter is incarcerated. Once child support is incurred, then it’s owed and you can’t get rid of the obligation. It’s non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and becomes a creditor against your estate after your death. So, just because Richter is in jail for life doesn’t mean that Roberts doesn’t owe the back child support. The judge made the decision here that the payments that would have gone to Richter because it’s back child support technically owed to her, will go to settle an existing debt she owes, the restitution.
It also should be noted that Richter currently owes Roberts $20 per month in child support under a separate court order. This current order doesn’t affect the amount of arrears that Roberts owes since that is already an existing and calculated debt.
http://www.kcci.com/news/judge-child-support-will-go-to-murder-victim-restitution/26416116#!Xc2pS
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/06/11/judge-orders-child-support-restitution-tracey-richter/10312483/
Monday, May 19, 2014
No More Babies if You Owe Support?
In September 2012, an Ohio man, Asim Taylor, 36 years old now, pled guilty to four charges of non-payment of child support for his four children and was sentenced to five years of probation. In January 2013, Taylor agreed and was ordered to pay $1,700 of his $96,000 arrearage by October 16, 2013 or else he would serve 30 days in jail (a process called a “purge”). Taylor failed to pay the purge amount and was sent to jail.
The court ordered that Taylor was not to get any other women pregnant until he could support the four children that he already has. Specifically Taylor was ordered to “make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during community control or until such time that [Taylor] can prove to the court that he is able to provide support for his children he already has and is in fact supporting the children or until a chance in conditions warrant the lifting of this conviction.”
Taylor appealed this decision arguing that the probation condition that he could not procreate was unreasonable and unconstitutional. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision but found that they were unable to determine the merits of the sentence. The record was not adequate for a complete review and to determine the circumstances behind the court’s imposition of probation. Taylor pled guilty so there was no trial record and the sentencing record was minimal. The trial court was to determine probation conditions with reference to the purpose of probation and the circumstances of the case. The appellate court was unable to determine, based on the record provided, whether the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation, had a relationship to the crime, and relates to future criminal activity.
http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20140513/ninth-district-court-of-appeals-upholds-lorain-child-support-case
There is a duty for parents to support their children. The premise of the Judge's orders appears to be to ensure that Taylor doesn't have more children until he can financially support the children that he has already fathered. As an order restricting someone's ability to procreate, however, there might be some constitutional issues. Also, it is unclear how the order would be enforced, or the penalties if violated (if he does, in fact, have another child).
The court ordered that Taylor was not to get any other women pregnant until he could support the four children that he already has. Specifically Taylor was ordered to “make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during community control or until such time that [Taylor] can prove to the court that he is able to provide support for his children he already has and is in fact supporting the children or until a chance in conditions warrant the lifting of this conviction.”
Taylor appealed this decision arguing that the probation condition that he could not procreate was unreasonable and unconstitutional. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision but found that they were unable to determine the merits of the sentence. The record was not adequate for a complete review and to determine the circumstances behind the court’s imposition of probation. Taylor pled guilty so there was no trial record and the sentencing record was minimal. The trial court was to determine probation conditions with reference to the purpose of probation and the circumstances of the case. The appellate court was unable to determine, based on the record provided, whether the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation, had a relationship to the crime, and relates to future criminal activity.
http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20140513/ninth-district-court-of-appeals-upholds-lorain-child-support-case
There is a duty for parents to support their children. The premise of the Judge's orders appears to be to ensure that Taylor doesn't have more children until he can financially support the children that he has already fathered. As an order restricting someone's ability to procreate, however, there might be some constitutional issues. Also, it is unclear how the order would be enforced, or the penalties if violated (if he does, in fact, have another child).
Monday, April 7, 2014
Child Support Obligation After Death of the Child
David A. Shane, now 47 years old, was convicted in 1997 of the 1994 murder and feticide of 23 year old Nicole Lynn Koontz who was seven months pregnant with Shane’s co-defendant’s, Robert L. Hicks’, child. Shane is serving a 60 year sentence for the crime.
Shane and his ex-wife divorced in 1990 and have a daughter Ashlie born in 1988. He was ordered to pay $67 per week in child support. Ashlie died in a house fire in April 2006 when she was 18 years old. At the time of her death, Shane was not current on his child support payments and owed some child support arrears. In December 2012, Delaware County child support obtained an income withholding order to recover some of the child support arrears.
Shane earns $0.95 per hour working in the prison laundry and works about 37 hours per week. The Delaware Circuit Court ruled that Shane must continue to pay 55% of his prison wages to pay off the child support arrears because the child support arrears don’t terminate with the death of the child. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld this ruling and found that Shane missed the deadline to appeal the decision by nine days.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/31/convicted-murderer-must-pay-child-support/7118465/
In California, the obligation to financially support your children is taken seriously. Failure to pay child support can result in revocation of the driver’s license, or any other licenses or permits issued by the state of California, or even potential jail time. Child support arrears can’t be discharged during bankruptcy and if the paying parent dies, if there are child support arrears, the receiving parent becomes a creditor against paying parent’s estate for repayment of the arrears. While the death of the child would have terminated the current child support order, the arrears were incurred while the child was still alive and the arrears don’t get discharged because the child is no longer living. The receiving parent is still owed the money that he/she should have received as financial assistance from the other parent during that period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)