Busta Nutt! Sorry Jerry, you can go to jail, but you are still on the hook for child support.

Jerry B. Nutt found himself on the receiving end of a paternity/child support action.  Jerry is also a guest of the State of California, staying at the Mule Creek State Prison until 2045.  Jerry admitted paternity, and then argued that his incarceration exempted him from any legal obligation to pay child support.  The trial court disagreed, and found that Nutt did have a child support obligation.

In what I am calling the Busta Nutt Case, the California Court of Appeal also disagreed with the good Mr. Nutt.  He does not have to actually write a check for support each month, because he does not in fact have any income.  However, the simple fact of his incarceration does not remove the cloud of a child support obligation from over his head should he ever start earning income.

Please click here to view the opinion from the Court of Appeal.

Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law.

Comments

[Family Law Solicitors Leeds]

This is an interesting one. First of all, if he's not actually making any income (and doesn't look like he will be for the next 18 years - r however long it might be depending on the age of the child) was there any point in this action? Could it have been better to wait until their was the chance of him earning an income before all the time and expense was spent?

Secondly, it's quite right that he shouldn't be exempt. He is incarcerated because of something he did - his committing a crime shouldn't have any positive implications for him, i.e. absolving him of his child support responsibilities.

Seems a shame that the one person to really suffer in all this will be the child. Nice Post.

[John M]

Good to see that you'll admit mistakes. I still think Busta Nutt is a bit over the top. Two points, though: even though your slip was inadvertent, there are still several cases where child support IS spousal support by proxy (particularly where the courts do not enforce any requirement on the recipient of the child support to obtain employment to support themselves). Secondly, the assignment of any sort of child support in prison is pretty much meaningless given the slave wages that fund the prison industry. Either it is a palty amount that barely covers costs of collecting, OR it ends up to be impossible for the prisoner to earn, thereby resulting in increased prison time and a vicious cycle.

[John E. Harding, JD, CFLS]

You right, my bad. It's child support. I fixed the typo. Thanks for the heads-up!

[John M]

Okay, first you say it's child support; next you say it's spousal support. So which is it? Or are you admitting what we all know, and that is that child support is simply spousal support with a different name (and better tax benefits for the recipient).