HICKS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA, Acting on Behalf of FEIOCK v. FEIOCK
Headline: Temporary stay lets California continue enforcing child-support contempt rulings, blocking a lower court rule that would have required the state to prove parents’ ability to comply beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding: Justice O'Connor granted a temporary stay allowing California to continue enforcing a child-support contempt judgment while the State seeks Supreme Court review, finding the State likely to prevail and the balance of harms favors a stay.
- Allows California to keep enforcing child-support contempt orders during Supreme Court review.
- Blocks a rule that would require the state to prove parents’ ability to pay.
- Reduces immediate harm to custodial parents and children from delayed support.
Summary
Background
A father, Phillip William Feiock, was ordered by an Orange County court to pay child support, failed to comply, and was held in civil contempt with a 25-day suspended sentence, probation, and an order to pay or face jail. The trial court used a California statute that treats a filed and served support order plus proof of nonpayment as prima facie evidence of contempt. The California Court of Appeal granted Feiock a writ of habeas corpus, annulled the contempt judgment, and held the statute unconstitutional because it forced the parent to prove he could not comply. The state’s high court denied review.
Reasoning
Justice O’Connor, acting as Circuit Justice, considered whether at least four Justices would take the case and whether the equities favored a stay while the Supreme Court reviews the issue. She noted this Court’s prior decision in United States v. Rylander, which said an alleged contemner must show a current inability to comply and must overcome a presumption of ability. Given Rylander, she doubted the California court’s ruling, concluded the State is likely to prevail, and found the balance of hardships favored a stay because the state and families would otherwise face heavy enforcement difficulties.
Real world impact
The stay allows California to continue enforcing the child-support contempt judgment while the Supreme Court considers review. If the lower court’s rule were left in place, it could make collecting child support much harder and let nonpaying parents avoid payments by relying on the prosecution’s burden. This ruling is temporary pending the Court’s final decision.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?