Dusty
December 11th 04, 03:16 AM
Jail for child-support violations reviewed
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20041210/NEWS/112100042/-1/rss02
Geoff Dornan,
December 10, 2004
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday said judges must make a careful
determination whether someone is truly indigent when they are facing jail
time for not paying child support.
The opinion was made in the case of Charles Rodriguez of Las Vegas who
argued he should be entitled to legal help because of the potential penalty.
He said his situation was essentially the same as a criminal defendant and
therefore his constitutional rights are being violated by jailing him for
contempt because he can't afford to pay his back child support.
The district judge was less than sympathetic, ruling that Rodriguez had
deliberately decided not to seek employment to avoid paying child support.
He refused the man's demand for a state-paid lawyer and ordered Rodriguez to
serve 25 days in jail, saying he could get out any time he could post
$10,000 toward his child-support debt.
The court panel of justices Bob Rose, Bill Maupin and Michael Douglas said
since the case is a civil contempt situation rather than a criminal case,
Rodriguez is not automatically entitled to counsel even though he faces jail
time. And they agreed the district court's options are very limited since
Rodriguez repeatedly failed to make child support payments.
On the other hand, the court admitted that, if he is truly indigent and
can't afford the payments or a lawyer to defend him, the situation may cross
the line and require he receive legal help.
The justices said they can't rule defendants in the same situation are never
entitled to legal help any more than they can rule them always entitled to a
court-paid lawyer.
"Because Rodriguez apparently elects not to seek employment, the state
possesses a limited set of available options to compel his compliance," the
opinion states.
"Without income, there is nothing to withhold, no federal income tax to
intercept and establishing a lien against an individual's real or personal
property is of little consequence where that party elects to have none."
"Without specific findings regarding Rodriguez's current financial status or
the status of the business awarded to him in the divorce, we are concerned
whether Rodriguez actually possesses the ability to secure his freedom," the
opinion states.
But they said most of the problem can be resolved by directing the district
court to make specific legal findings regarding Rodriguez's current
financial status.
The justices ordered the Las Vegas court to bring Rodriguez back and make
specific findings as to his financial status and ability to pay. They said
that will enable the district court to determine whether Rodriguez is
actually in civil contempt for not paying and to fairly decide what the
penalty for that contempt should be.
--
"The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20041210/NEWS/112100042/-1/rss02
Geoff Dornan,
December 10, 2004
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday said judges must make a careful
determination whether someone is truly indigent when they are facing jail
time for not paying child support.
The opinion was made in the case of Charles Rodriguez of Las Vegas who
argued he should be entitled to legal help because of the potential penalty.
He said his situation was essentially the same as a criminal defendant and
therefore his constitutional rights are being violated by jailing him for
contempt because he can't afford to pay his back child support.
The district judge was less than sympathetic, ruling that Rodriguez had
deliberately decided not to seek employment to avoid paying child support.
He refused the man's demand for a state-paid lawyer and ordered Rodriguez to
serve 25 days in jail, saying he could get out any time he could post
$10,000 toward his child-support debt.
The court panel of justices Bob Rose, Bill Maupin and Michael Douglas said
since the case is a civil contempt situation rather than a criminal case,
Rodriguez is not automatically entitled to counsel even though he faces jail
time. And they agreed the district court's options are very limited since
Rodriguez repeatedly failed to make child support payments.
On the other hand, the court admitted that, if he is truly indigent and
can't afford the payments or a lawyer to defend him, the situation may cross
the line and require he receive legal help.
The justices said they can't rule defendants in the same situation are never
entitled to legal help any more than they can rule them always entitled to a
court-paid lawyer.
"Because Rodriguez apparently elects not to seek employment, the state
possesses a limited set of available options to compel his compliance," the
opinion states.
"Without income, there is nothing to withhold, no federal income tax to
intercept and establishing a lien against an individual's real or personal
property is of little consequence where that party elects to have none."
"Without specific findings regarding Rodriguez's current financial status or
the status of the business awarded to him in the divorce, we are concerned
whether Rodriguez actually possesses the ability to secure his freedom," the
opinion states.
But they said most of the problem can be resolved by directing the district
court to make specific legal findings regarding Rodriguez's current
financial status.
The justices ordered the Las Vegas court to bring Rodriguez back and make
specific findings as to his financial status and ability to pay. They said
that will enable the district court to determine whether Rodriguez is
actually in civil contempt for not paying and to fairly decide what the
penalty for that contempt should be.
--
"The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan