Quadriplegic Dad Found Guilty of Failure to Pay Child Support
Tennessee child support collection case summary.
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Deedra Climer Bass v. Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Perez
The mother and father in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were the parents of a daughter who was born in 1998. The father was ordered to pay $436 per month in child support. In 2002, the father was injured on the job, and receives benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. That act provides that benefits are exempt from levy or collection by creditors. In 2005, the child support obligation was lowered to $203 per month, plus $25 toward arrears.
The State became involved in the case and filed a petition for contempt for non-payment of child support. A hearing was held in 2015, and a magistrate found the father in contempt. The father was ordered jailed for 30 days or until he paid $5,000, which was part of the arrears.
The father requested a hearing before a judge. The evidence showed that the father was quadriplegic and that a trust had been set up to pay the workers compensation benefits. The father was receiving benefits of about $2,247 per month from the trust, and his expenses had been in excess of $2,000 per month. The court affirmed the contempt judgment, and the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the father argued that because his benefits are not subject to levy, execution, or other remedy for collection, those benefits should not have been considered in determining whether he was guilty of contempt.
The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. Even though the benefits were not subject to levy, it was still proper to consider them as assets for child support purposes. Since those assets gave the father an ability to pay the child support, it was proper to consider them for that purpose.
The appeals court also noted that the father had other assets which were available to pay child support. The child support guidelines take into account all income, whether earned or unearned. Even though the father had no income from employment, it was proper to consider the trust payments.
After reviewing all of the evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that the father did have an ability to pay. Therefore, the finding of contempt by the lower court was proper.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Juvenile Court.
No. W2016-00655-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Support Collection & Enforcement in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring actual examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
