Yes, a court can punish a parent for this. A parent choosing not to work so they can't pay child support is breaking their obligation. Forcing someone to get a job to support their own kids is not 'slavery.' Slavery is when you're forced to work for a specific person and can't leave. Here, the dad could choose any job he wanted. Also, jailing someone for not paying child support isn't the same as 'debtor's prison.' Child support isn't a regular debt like a credit card bill; it's a special duty to your children. Willfully avoiding that duty is wrong. In court, the dad, Brent, had the responsibility to prove he was truly unable to pay. He couldn't just say 'I'm broke'; he had to show he couldn't get a job even if he tried. However, the court decided it couldn't punish Brent because this ruling clarified a legal area that was confusing before. Applying this new, clearer rule to him wouldn't be fair.

Yes, and the court should have punished Brent right now. I agree with the main opinion that this is the law. But, I disagree that we should let Brent off the hook. It wasn't a big surprise that a parent should have to work to support their kids; other laws already hinted at this. The old case everyone was worried about was for spousal support, not child support, so it didn't really apply here. Brent didn't even try to show the judge he was looking for a job, so he should have been found in contempt.

The court said there's no rule that says you can't punish a parent for disobeying a child support order, if the only reason they can't pay is because they didn't even try to get a job they're able to do. The court said some old cases that might say differently don't apply to child support. If a parent says they can't pay, it's their job to prove it. The court said parents have a basic duty to support their kids, and judges can consider if a parent is able to earn money when deciding how much child support they should pay.

Justice Kennard agreed with the other judges' reasons but disagreed on what to do about Brent Moss. She said the new rule should apply to him even if it's a change from what he expected. She pointed out the decision doesn't force him to get a specific job, as long as he earns enough to pay the child support he owes.

No, a parent cannot use lack of money as an excuse to avoid punishment for not paying child support if they chose not to get a job on purpose. There is no rule that prevents punishing a parent for disobeying a child support order when the only reason they can't pay is because they didn't even try to get a job they're able to do. Some old cases that might say differently don't apply to child support. If a parent says they can't pay, it's their job to prove it. Parents have a basic duty to support their kids, and I can consider if a parent is able to earn money when deciding how much child support they should pay.

I agree with the other judges' reasons but disagree on what to do about Brent Moss. The new rule should apply to him even if it's a change from what he expected. The decision doesn't force him to get a specific job, as long as he earns enough to pay the child support he owes.

—our Supreme Court held that contempt sanctions can be imposed on a parent whose inability to pay child support is the result of a willful failure to seek employment.

To prevail on the affirmative defense of inability to comply with the support order, the contemner must prove such inability by a preponderance of the evidence

—child support order “does not bind the parent to any particular employer or form of employment or otherwise affect the freedom of the parent

The obligation of a parent to support a child... is among the most fundamental obligations recognized by modern society

This brief history provides context to the California Supreme Court's most recent comment on the reliance on evidence of earning capacity in child support cases: "We... decline to read into Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b), any limitation on the discretion vested in the trial court to consider earning capacity in determining the appropriate amount of child support …

The elements of proof necessary to support punishment for contempt are:(1) a valid court order,(2) the alleged contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (3) noncompliance

Court-ordered community service is not, as appellant argues, involuntary servitude barred by the Thirteenth Amendment.

But it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense

—to the extent each could be read as regarding the use of the clear and convincing standard of proof before the trial court as having no effect on appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence

No, punishing a willfully unemployed parent with contempt for failure to pay child support does not violate constitutional prohibitions. The court has the power to impose contempt sanctions when a parent's financial inability to comply with a child support order results from the parent's willful failure to seek and accept available employment. The court's reasoning is threefold. First, regarding involuntary servitude, the obligation to find work to support one's child is not akin to peonage or slavery, as the parent is free to choose their own employer and type of work; it is a fundamental societal duty. Second, concerning imprisonment for debt, child support obligations are not considered ordinary 'debts' under the constitutional prohibition. Even if they were, a parent's willful refusal to earn money to meet this obligation constitutes a form of fraud, which is a recognized exception to the prohibition. Third, the court clarified that under Code of Civil Procedure § 1209.5, inability to comply is an affirmative defense. The petitioner need only prove the existence of the order, the contemner's knowledge of it, and noncompliance. The burden then shifts to the alleged contemner to prove their inability to comply by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the court affirmed the reversal of the contempt judgment against Moss because its holdings—disapproving the 100-year-old precedent of Ex parte Todd as applied to child support and clarifying the burden of proof—represented an unforeseeable change in the law, which could not be applied retroactively without violating due process.

No, the contempt power does not violate the constitution, and it should have been applied in this case. While I agree with the majority's entire constitutional analysis, I dissent from the disposition. The majority's holding should have been applied retroactively to Brent Moss. The change in law was not 'unforeseeable' as the Family Code already contained statutes compelling unemployed parents to seek work, providing Moss with fair warning that his conduct was punishable. The precedent the majority disapproves, Ex parte Todd, concerned spousal support, not child support, and thus was not controlling authority on which Moss could reasonably rely. Furthermore, even under the previous, less stringent burden of proof, Moss failed to present sufficient evidence to even raise the defense of inability to pay, as he offered no evidence of his efforts to find work. Therefore, the trial court's contempt judgment should have been affirmed.

No. The court concluded there is no constitutional impediment to imposing contempt sanctions on a parent for violating a child support order when the parent's financial inability to comply results from a willful failure to seek and accept available employment commensurate with his or her skills and abilities. The court disapproved prior decisions to the extent they might apply to child support orders, and held that inability to comply is an affirmative defense which the alleged contemner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. The court emphasized a parent's fundamental obligation to support their child and the trial court's discretion to consider earning capacity in setting the appropriate support amount.

Justice Kennard concurred with the majority's reasoning but dissented on the disposition, arguing the new rule should be applied to Brent Moss despite it being an unanticipated change in the law from the majority's perspective. She noted the decision does not bind the parent to any particular employment, as long as the parent fulfills the child support obligation.

Moss v. Superior Court

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot