El Dorado County Department of Child Support Services v. Nutt

California Court of Appeal Oct 21, 2008 No. C056534Published

Before: Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court does not err by reserving jurisdiction over child support and health insurance obligations for an incarcerated parent, provided the court does not impute income or order payments while the parent lacks the ability to pay.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to exempt an incarcerated parent from all current and future child support and health insurance obligations.
Whether the trial court erred by reserving jurisdiction over child support and health insurance instead of closing the case.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court did not err in finding he has an obligation to do so, even if that obligation cannot be satisfied now.”

“Nutt is not, as he suggests, being held to a standard of implied or imputed earning capacity. The court instead accepted Nutt’s declaration that he has no income, and he was not ordered to pay any support amount.”

Opinion

MORRISON, J.

The El Dorado County Department of Child Support Services (County) filed a complaint for child support against incarcerated prisoner Jerry B. Nutt. The court found Nutt owed a duty of support, but found he presently has no income and so reserved jurisdiction on the amount of support.

On appeal, Nutt asks us to find him “exempt” from all current and future support obligations. We decline and shall affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

At all times relevant here, Nutt was incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. He received a 50-year-to-life sentence in 1997 under the three strikes law, and he will be eligible for parole in 2045.

[992]

In May 2006, the County filed a complaint against Nutt to establish paternity and child support, when the minor child was 12 years old. It did not seek child support in any particular amount: its proposed judgment regarding Nutt’s parental obligations “reserved” the amount of monthly support.

Nutt submitted a declaration in which he averred he is “unable to earn, nor does the prison system at my current incarceration offer me the availability of a job, in which I can earn minimum wage or otherwise pay for support of’ the minor.

Nutt admitted paternity, and testing established it.

At the hearing on the County’s motion to enter judgment on its complaint, the court found that paternity had been established and ruled Nutt is “going to be [in prison] until long after the child is emancipated, so unless he . . . starts receiving income of some sort, he is not going to be ordered to pay any money.” However, the court granted the County’s request for an order that Nutt provide health insurance coverage for the minor “should it become available at reasonable cost.”

The judgment entered thereafter ordered Nutt to pay child support, but reserved judgment on the amount.

Nutt moved to modify the child support order. He asked that the child support case be “closed”—and his theoretical obligation to pay support or health insurance costs in the future eliminated—because he has no money, no prison job, and no prospect of ever having one.

El Dorado County Department of Child Support Services v. Nutt

AI Brief

MORRISON, J.

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief