ILNews

Judges affirm $6,600 in child support arrearage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed that a father owed only $6,600 in back child support and not $74,000 as the child’s mother claimed.

L.S., the daughter of Belinda Douglas and Neil Spicer, was born in February 1994. Spicer was listed on L.S.’s birth certificate, but a paternity action initiated in late 2004 was dismissed in October 2005 after both parties failed to appear at a status hearing.

Before dismissing the action, the trial court in February 2005 entered a provisional order for Neil to pay Douglas $200 per week in child support. Spicer never paid the court-ordered child support, but did provide financial care for his daughter, including providing health insurance.

Douglas filed to reopen the case in 2012, in which the trial court ordered Spicer to pay $6,600 in arrearage for the 33 weeks between Feb. 23, 2005, and Oct. 12, 2005, when the court dismissed the case.

Douglas argued that Spicer actually owes her $74,000 in arrearage, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the court-ordered amount. The judges found the same principle in I.C. 31-15-4-14 applies in this case. That statute provides that a provisional order in a dissolution action terminates when the final decree is entered or the petition for dissolution is dismissed.  Since the February 2005 child support order was a provisional order for “temporary support” pending a hearing on child support, the trial court properly found Spicer’s obligation to pay child support ended in October 2005.

The judges also rejected Douglas’ claim that Spicer did not satisfy his common law duty to support his daughter in Belinda Douglas v. Neil Spicer and L.S., 32A01-1309-JP-403.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT