Also known as: persistent nonsupport · persistent non support · persistently nonsupporting · nonsupport · failure to support
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A misdemeanor consisting of the persistent failure to provide support that the actor can provide and knows he is legally obliged to provide to a spouse, child, or other dependent.
Priya Prasad gave birth after a brief relationship with Pedro Pacheco. Pedro left the area without providing any support or contact information for months. When Priya arranged an adoption, Pedro later objected but the court proceeded without his consent due to his prolonged failure to support the child.
Paige Porter and Pavel Petrov agreed to raise twins together after using assisted reproduction. After their relationship ended, Paige stopped providing any financial support despite her ability to do so. The court held her responsible for ongoing support obligations to the children she had helped bring into the world.
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 casePiper Patel owed years of unpaid child support from a prior marriage. State law barred her from obtaining a new marriage license until the arrears were addressed. The restriction was challenged as an unconstitutional burden on the right to marry.
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 casePaula Pierce fell behind on child support payments and faced civil contempt proceedings. The court jailed her for noncompliance even though she could not afford an attorney at the hearing. The lack of appointed counsel raised due process concerns in the enforcement action.
In June 2003 a South Carolina family court entered an order requiring petitioner Michael Turner to pay respondent Rebecca Rogers $51.73 per week to help support their child. Rogers' father Larry Price currently has custody of the child and is also a respondent before this Court. Over the next three years Turner repeatedly failed to pay the amount due and was held in contempt on five occasions. The first four times he was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment but ultimately paid what he owed. He paid twice without being jailed and twice after spending a few days in custody. The fifth time he did not pay but completed a six-month sentence. After his release Turner remained in arrears. On March 27, 2006 the family court clerk issued a new show cause order because Turner was $5,728.76 behind. Following an initial postponement due to Turner's failure to appear, his civil contempt hearing took place on January 3, 2008. Turner and Rogers were both present without representation by counsel. The court clerk stated the arrearage amount. The judge asked Turner if there was anything he wanted to say. Turner described getting back on drugs after release, breaking his back in September, filing for disability and SSI benefits, and hoping for another chance. The judge then asked Rogers if she had anything to say. The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to twelve months in the Oconee County Detention Center. Turner could purge the contempt by reaching a zero balance. The judge completed a prewritten Order for Contempt of Court form but left blank the statement indicating whether Turner was gainfully employed and had the ability to make support payments when due. Turner served the full sentence. While serving the sentence Turner appealed with pro bono counsel claiming a federal constitutional right to counsel at the contempt hearing. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the claim after Turner completed his sentence. Turner sought certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted review. Within months of his release from the twelve-month imprisonment Turner was again the subject of civil contempt proceedings. He had arrears of $13,814.72 as of December 2010. Another hearing was scheduled for May 2011.
View casePremier Manufacturing employee Pedro Pacheco was subject to a support order entered in his home state. After moving, he sought modification in the new state but the original decree controlled under full faith and credit principles.
On August 10, 1930, sixteen-year-old Sadie Yarborough was living with her maternal grandfather, R.D. Blowers, in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Acting through him as guardian ad litem, she filed suit in a South Carolina court against her father, W.A. Yarborough, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, seeking an order requiring him to provide for her education and maintenance. She alleged that she was ready for college but lacked funds and would otherwise be denied necessities and an education. For some time prior to June 1927 the family had lived together in Atlanta. In that month Sadie's mother left for Hendersonville, North Carolina, and Sadie joined her there after attending camp. In September 1927 W.A. Yarborough filed suit for total divorce in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on grounds of mental and physical cruelty. His wife answered and filed a cross-suit requesting a total divorce, custody of Sadie, and permanent alimony for the support and education of herself and the minor child. On January 17, 1929, after the first verdict, the Georgia court entered a consent order that transferred mortgages totaling $1,750 to R.D. Blowers as trustee for Sadie, to be expended in his discretion for her education, support, maintenance, medical attention, and other necessary items. The order stated that upon the father's compliance he would be relieved of all further payments of alimony and counsel fees. Two concurring verdicts were later rendered and a final decree of total divorce was entered on June 7, 1929, retaining jurisdiction for enforcement of prior orders. W.A. Yarborough fully complied with the January 1929 order. In the South Carolina action the father pleaded the Georgia judgment as a complete defense. The South Carolina trial court rejected that defense, ordered him to pay fifty dollars monthly for Sadie's education and support plus three hundred dollars in counsel fees, and directed that the attached property be transferred to the grandfather as trustee to secure performance. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePhoenix Technologies worker Pavel Petrov fathered a child out of wedlock and provided no support. The mother sued for enforcement, and the court recognized the child's right to equal treatment in obtaining support from the biological father.
In 1969, the appellant, a mother acting on behalf of her minor daughter, filed a petition in Texas District Court seeking support from the appellee on behalf of her minor child. The petition sought to enforce a support obligation against the appellee, the alleged natural father of the child. After conducting a hearing, the state trial judge made key findings. The judge determined that the appellee is the biological father of the child and that the child needs the support and maintenance of her father. However, the judge concluded that because the child was illegitimate there is no legal obligation to support the child and the Plaintiff take nothing. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this ruling over the objection that this illegitimate child was being denied equal protection of law. The Texas Supreme Court refused application for a writ of error, finding no reversible error. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to consider the equal protection claim.
View caseThe offense requires that the actor knows he is legally obliged to provide support and can provide it yet persistently fails to do so.
The Model Penal Code classifies persistent non-support as a misdemeanor.
Prolonged failure to support or contact can render an unmarried father's consent unnecessary for adoption under state statutes that treat such conduct as abandonment.
Supporting sources
Under the Uniform Probate Code a parent may be barred from inheriting from a child when clear and convincing evidence shows the parent's rights could have been terminated for nonsupport.
Supporting sources
…obligations may result in conviction of the felony offense of abandonment of a minor child, § 52.05, or the misdemeanor of failure to support a minor child, § 52.055. : See Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, 23 Yale L. J. 16 (1913). : See ante , at 386. :…