Esteb v. Enright by State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 55A01-9007-CV-00277,55A01-9007-CV-00277 |
| Parties | Charles ESTEB, Appellant (Respondent Below), v. Sandra ENRIGHT, By the STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Petitioner Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Thomas M. Frohman, Jamie Andree, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., Bloomington, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon E. White, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Charles Esteb appeals the trial court's order--specifically designated to be enforceable by contempt--that 1) reduces his child support arrearage to a judgment, 2) requires him to make payments toward the reduction of the arrearage, and 3) requires him to make the present installments on his child support obligation in this URESA action to enforce a 1975 Oklahoma child support order brought by the State of Indiana in the name of Charles's ex-wife, Sandra Enright. 1 Charles is disabled and his sole source of income/support is Supplemental Security Income (SSI), awarded pursuant to Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1381-1383c. We reverse.
Charles Esteb and Sandra Enright were divorced by an Oklahoma court in 1975. Sandra was awarded custody of the parties' two minor children and Charles was ordered to pay $150.00 per month for the children's support. Sandra now lives in Marion County, Indiana and Charles lives in Morgan County, Indiana. The Title IV-D Prosecutor for Morgan County brought this action pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), IND.CODE 31-2-1-1 et seq.
The trial court found that Charles was $25,600.00 in arrears in his child support obligation and reduced that sum to judgment to bear interest at the statutory rate. The trial court ordered Charles to make payments in the amount of $250.00 per month through the Clerk of Morgan County to be forwarded to the Marion County Clerk, Child Support Division. Each $250.00 monthly payment consists of $150.00 for Charles's current support obligation and an additional $100.00 per month to reduce the $25,600.00 arrearage. The trial court noted that the Petitioner (Sandra by the State of Indiana) could file a new action for enforcement through contempt if Charles testified--and the evidence would appear to be undisputed--that he has had no contact with his children for many years. He believed the children had been adopted because Sandra had sent him a Consent to Adoption in 1981 which he had signed and returned to her. Charles did not know until the present proceedings were begun that the adoption had not taken place. It is also undisputed that Charles has no property of value and his only source of income is $386.00 per month in Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Charles fails to comply with the present order.
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, IND.CODE 31-2-1-1 et seq., creates no duty of support but simply provides a means to enforce a duty of support as it may exist under the law of the responding state. People ex rel. Gribbins v. Skopitz (1985), 135 Ill.App.3d 76, 90 Ill.Dec. 15, 481 N.E.2d 815. Under URESA, a foreign support order, when confirmed by an Indiana court, becomes for all intents and purposes an Indiana support order. State ex rel. Greebel v. Endsley (1978), 269 Ind. 174, 379 N.E.2d 440.
A child support order may be enforced by contempt. Thompson v. Thompson (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 298. The failure of a parent to pay child support as required by a divorce decree will not place the parent in contempt if he or she does not have money to pay and is unable to secure it. Dissette v. Dissette (1935), 208 Ind. 567, 196 N.E. 684. A parent who has failed to comply with a child support order has the burden of proving that the failure to comply was not willful or was otherwise excused. Holman v. Holman (1985), Ind.App., 472 N.E.2d 1279. The trial court's finding that a parent is not excused from his or her failure to pay support is a negative judgment which will be reversed only if there is no evidence to support the trial court's conclusion. Id.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1381-1383c, is a social welfare program. Mathews v. deCastro (1976), 429 U.S. 181, 97 S.Ct. 431, 50 L.Ed.2d 389. The purpose of SSI is to assure that recipients' income is maintained at a level viewed by Congress as the minimum necessary for the subsistence of that individual. Whaley v. Schweiker (9th Cir.1981), 663 F.2d 871. SSI benefits are exempt from any legal process brought by any creditor. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1383(d)(1).
SSI is specifically excluded from a parent's income for the purpose of computing child support under Ind. Child Support Guideline 3.A.1. The commentary to the child support guidelines provides that support should not be set such that the obligor is denied a means of self-support at a subsistence level. Commentary to Child Supp. G. 2. 2
In the present case, there is really no factual or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Morris, 96-SC-790-DG
...re Marriage of Benson, 495 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa App. 1992); Proudfit v. O'Neal, 193 Mich. App. 608, 484 N.W.2d 746 (1992); Esteb v. Enright, 563 N.E.2d 139 (Ind. App. 1990); Langlois v. Langlois, 150 Wis. 2d 101, 441 N.W.2d 286 [67] *fn2 Supplemental Income disability benefits are decreased by ......
-
Com. ex rel. Morris v. Morris, 96-SC-790-DG
...In re Marriage of Benson, 495 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa App.1992); Proudfit v. O'Neal, 193 Mich.App. 608, 484 N.W.2d 746 (1992); Esteb v. Enright, 563 N.E.2d 139 (Ind.App.1990); Langlois v. Langlois, 150 Wis.2d 101, 441 N.W.2d 286 (1989).2 Supplemental Income disability benefits are decreased by the......
-
TARAVELLA v. Stanley, (AC 17077)
...under the law of the responding state." Johnson v. Johnson, 264 Ill. App. 3d 662, 664, 636 N.E.2d 1013 (1994); see Esteb v. Enright, 563 N.E.2d 139, 141 (Ind. App. 1990); Horch v. Ponik, 132 Wis. 2d 373, 378, 392 N.W.2d 123, rev. denied, 132 Wis. 2d 484, 393 N.W.2d 544 (1986). The remedies ......
-
Davis v Office Child Support Enforcement, 98-1343
...define public assistance benefits to include SSI. See In re Marriage of Benson, 495 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Esteb v. Enright, 563 N.E.2d 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). We join with Alabama, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania in holding that an individual whose sole source of income is SSI can b......