ILNews

Child support arrearage dispute sent back to trial court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals instructed a trial court to do the work necessary before entering an order garnishing a parent’s money for child support.  

A father, incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction, disputed an income withholding order that garnished his inmate trust fund account to pay down his child support arrearages.

He pointed to a pre-dispositional report from April 2008 that found he did not have the ability to pay child support and that no arrears would be sought against him. Also, the father noted the court had not issued a new order regarding payment of the arrearages.

The father then requested a hearing to present evidence that the arrearage never should have accrued, to determine the amount of any arrearage owed, and to determine the monthly amount he should pay, if any. In addition, he requested the court suspend the garnishment of his prison account until his release from incarceration.

The trial court issued an “Order Denying Father’s Request to Disallow Income Withholding Order.”

The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court abused its discretion in denying the father’s motion in In Re: Paternity of J.M.; C.M. v. T.S., 18A02-1308-JP-684.
It reversed and remanded with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the arrearage amount and the father’s ability to pay plus a payment schedule.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court never entered an income withholding order with respect to any arrearage and, in fact, never entered an order which required the father to make payments toward his arrearage.

Also, the lower court did not hear any evidence about the father’s ability to pay his arrearage. The trial court did not establish the total amount of the arrearage or set up a payment schedule.

Judge Margaret Robb wrote a separate opinion. She concurred in substance with the majority’s opinion but pointed out the trial court’s denial was signed only by a magistrate and not reviewed or approved by the judge.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT