Also known as: nonsupports · non-support · failure to support · criminal nonsupport
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The failure to provide financial or other support to a person whom one is legally obligated to maintain, such as a child or spouse.
Luis left town months before Rosa gave birth and sent no money or messages. When he later objected to the adoption, the court examined his complete absence of support and contact. Because he never manifested parental responsibility, the court waived his consent and allowed the adoption to proceed.
After consenting to his wife's artificial insemination, a man later refused to pay any expenses for the resulting child. Prosecutors charged him with nonsupport. The court held that his active participation in creating the child imposed the same support duties as biological parenthood.
Elisa B. and Emily B. entered into a lesbian relationship in 1993 and began living together six months later. They introduced each other to friends as their partner, exchanged rings, opened a joint bank account, and believed they were in a committed relationship. They discussed having children and decided that they both wished to give birth, with Emily as the stay-at-home mother and Elisa as the primary breadwinner because Elisa earned more than twice as much money as Emily. They chose a donor at a sperm bank so the children would be biological brothers and sisters. Elisa became pregnant in February 1997 and gave birth to Chance in November 1997. Emily began the insemination process in June of 1997 and became pregnant in August 1997, giving birth prematurely in March 1998 to twins Ry and Kaia. Ry had medical problems including Down’s syndrome and required heart surgery. Elisa was present when Emily was inseminated and picked up additional sperm to inseminate Emily at their home. They jointly selected the children’s names, joining their surnames with a hyphen. They each breast-fed all of the children. Elisa claimed all three children as her dependents on her tax returns and obtained a life insurance policy on herself naming Emily as the beneficiary. Elisa’s parents referred to the twins as their grandchildren, and her sister referred to Elisa as the twins’ mother. Elisa treated all of the children as hers and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. Elisa and Emily identified themselves as coparents of Ry at an organization arranging care for his Down’s syndrome. Elisa and Emily separated in November 1999. Elisa promised to support Emily and the twins as much as she possibly could and initially paid the mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 per month on the house in which Emily and the twins continued to live, as well as other expenses. When they sold the house and Emily and the twins moved into an apartment in November 2000, Elisa paid Emily $1,000 a month. In early 2001, Elisa stated she lost her position as a full-time employee and told Emily she no longer could support her and the twins. At the time of trial, Elisa was earning $95,000 a year. Emily applied for aid. On June 7, 2001, the El Dorado County District Attorney filed a complaint in superior court to establish that Elisa B. is a parent of two-year-old twins Kaia B. and Ry B., who were born to Emily B., and to order Elisa to pay child support. After a hearing, the superior court rendered a written decision on July 11, 2002, ordering Elisa to pay child support in the amount of $907.50 per child for a total of $1815 per month. Elisa petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, and the court directed the superior court to vacate its order and dismiss the action. The Supreme Court granted review.
View caseRedhail owed years of child support and could not obtain a marriage license under state law until the arrears were paid. The statute treated ongoing nonsupport as a barrier to new family formation. The Court struck the law because less restrictive collection tools existed.
In January 1972 a paternity action was instituted against Roger G. Redhail in Milwaukee County Court alleging that he was the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock on July 5, 1971. After Redhail admitted paternity the court entered an order on May 12, 1972 adjudging him the father and ordering him to pay $109 per month as support until the child reached age eighteen. From May 1972 until August 1974 Redhail was unemployed and indigent and consequently was unable to make any support payments. As of December 1974 there was an arrearage in excess of $3,700. The child had been a public charge since her birth receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In September 1974 Redhail applied for a marriage license in Milwaukee County. County Clerk Thomas E. Zablocki denied the application because Redhail had not obtained a court order pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 245.10(1). Redhail would not have been able to satisfy either statutory prerequisite for permission to marry. After the license denial Redhail filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that the statute violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. The plaintiff class was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). After the parties filed a stipulation of facts and briefs were submitted the three-judge court held the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its enforcement. Zablocki brought a direct appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed the District Court judgment.
View caseA former spouse moved for summary judgment on unpaid child support after the obligor produced no evidence of payments. The court granted the motion because the record contained no genuine dispute that nonsupport had occurred for the claimed period.
In September 1980 respondent Catrett, as administratrix of her husband's estate, commenced a wrongful-death action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against fifteen named corporations including petitioner Celotex Corporation. The complaint alleged that her husband Louis H. Catrett died in 1979 from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on diversity grounds. After extensive discovery Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment in September 1981 asserting that respondent had failed to produce any evidence that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex asbestos products. In response respondent produced a transcript of the decedent's deposition taken in a separate California proceeding, a letter from an official of one of Celotex's former insurance companies, and a letter from one of Celotex's customers. In July 1982 the District Court granted summary judgment to Celotex on the ground that respondent had made no showing of exposure to Celotex products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period. Respondent appealed only that ruling. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that Celotex had failed to meet its initial burden because it made no effort to adduce affirmative evidence supporting its motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits concerning the proper standard under Rule 56.
View caseResidents picketed a business owner who had fallen behind on court-ordered support for his children. The protest focused on the owner's failure to meet his legal obligations. The Court protected the picketing as speech on a matter of public concern.
The Illinois residential picketing statute generally bars picketing of residences or dwellings but exempts from its prohibition the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute. It also exempts picketing of a residence used as a place of business, picketing by a resident of his or her own home, and picketing at the place of holding a meeting or assembly on premises commonly used to discuss subjects of general public interest. On September 6, 1977, several of the appellees, all of whom are members of a civil rights organization entitled the Committee Against Racism, participated in a peaceful demonstration on the public sidewalk in front of the home of Michael Bilandic, then Mayor of Chicago, protesting his alleged failure to support the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial integration. They were arrested and charged with unlawful residential picketing in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 21.1-2 (1977). Appellees pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to periods of supervision ranging from six months to a year. In April 1978, appellees commenced this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Illinois residential picketing statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and an injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing the statute. Appellees did not attempt to attack collaterally their earlier state-court convictions, but requested only prospective relief. The District Court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, denied all relief. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseA low-level state employee hired under a political patronage system stopped paying ordered child support. When enforcement proceedings began, the employee argued the hiring itself was unconstitutional. The Court addressed the patronage claim separately from the independent nonsupport obligation.
In November 1980, Illinois Governor James Thompson issued Executive Order No. 5, which imposed a hiring freeze affecting approximately 60,000 state positions not exempt from the civil service system. The order required express permission from the Governor's Office of Personnel for any hiring, filling of vacancies, creation of new positions, promotions, transfers, or recalls after layoffs. The Governor's Office screened applicants and employees based on factors including whether they had voted in Republican primaries, provided financial or other support to the Republican Party, promised future support, or had the backing of Republican Party officials. Five individuals brought suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois against state officials and Republican Party officials. Cynthia Rutan, a rehabilitation counselor employed by the state since 1974, alleged repeated denials of promotions to supervisory positions since 1981 due to lack of Republican support. Franklin Taylor, who operated road equipment for the Department of Transportation, claimed denial of a 1983 promotion and a requested transfer because of opposition from local Republican Party chairmen. James Moore alleged repeated denials of employment as a prison guard for the same reason. Ricky Standefer, a state garage worker, asserted he was not recalled after a layoff despite other employees being recalled, because he had voted in a Democratic primary and lacked Republican support. Dan O'Brien, formerly a dietary manager in the mental health department, contended he was not recalled after layoff due to his party affiliation and only obtained a lower-paying position in the corrections department after securing support from a local Republican Party chairman. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part in 1989, holding that only employment decisions substantially equivalent to dismissal violated the First Amendment and dismissing the hiring claim outright. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1989 to address whether the First Amendment protections against patronage dismissals extend to promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions.
View caseNonsupport combined with absence of contact and failure to register or admit paternity permits waiver after notice and hearing. The court examines whether the father manifested parental responsibility before the adoption placement.
Nonsupport is a crime in most states when a person willfully fails to provide required support to a child or spouse. Civil enforcement tools remain available even without a criminal conviction.
A parent is barred from inheriting if clear and convincing evidence shows the parent's rights could have been terminated for nonsupport before the child's death. Termination of rights also bars inheritance.
Occasional prenatal rides without financial support, formal acknowledgment, or registration usually fall short. Courts require actual manifestations of responsibility such as regular support payments and willingness to assume custody.
…upon the right to marry. The State may enforce support obligations through wage assignments, civil contempt proceedings, criminal nonsupport proceedings, and other means. The State may also require that persons with support obligations post bonds or make other financial arrangements to ensure that their support obligations are…