ILNews

COA reverses denial of prisoner's petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of an incarcerated man's petition for child support modification after determining the trial court incorrectly imputed his weekly gross income.

The appellate court often looked to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007), to determine the trial court erred in denying Joshua March's pro se petition in the case In the Matter of the Guardianship of R.M.M., No. 09A02-0808-CV-725.

March was incarcerated when guardianship of his daughter, R.M.M., was awarded to her great-aunt and uncle. At the time guardianship was established, March and R.M.M.'s mother, who was also incarcerated, were ordered to pay $15 in child support weekly. Later, the great-aunt and uncle petitioned to modify the order, arguing that Indiana's Child Support Guidelines require a total obligation based on an assumed federal minimum wage. The trial court modified the child support order so that March had to pay $67 per week and determined his weekly gross income while incarcerated was $210.

In his appeal, March argued the child support order was inconsistent with Lambert and Indiana law, and that he only made $6 a month.

The Court of Appeals looked to Lambert for guidance on the instant case, even though the circumstances of the cases differ. That case involved a question of whether incarceration justified reducing an existing support order; March had been incarcerated the entire time of the modifications to his support order.

March argued that Lambert mandates that an incarcerated parent's income shouldn't be imputed to minimum wage if the parent isn't actually making a 40-hour minimum wage income. While Lambert doesn't expressly say that, March may have a point, wrote Judge Michael Barnes, given that the Commentary to the Guidelines indicates the guidelines don't establish a minimum support obligation. The Lambert ruling only cautioned trial courts from imputing income based on "pre-incarceration wages" or "other employment-related income."

Another Court of Appeals panel ruled on this issue in Clark v. Clark, 887 N.E.2d 1021, 1051, (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), - which has been transferred to the Supreme Court - in which the panel ruled minimum wage shouldn't be interpreted as a cut-off amount for child support payments.

The error in the instant case is that the trial court didn't base its calculation of March's support on actual income or assets available to him, as is instructed in Lambert, wrote Judge Barnes.

The Court of Appeals remanded for further fact-finding proceedings regarding March's current actual earnings and assets with modification of his child support order obligation in line with those findings, and any modification would be retroactive to the date he filed his petition.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT