Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock

1988-04-27

Headline: Child support enforcement ruling vacates state court decision and remands, allowing a state presumption to stand if the contempt is civil, affecting how states may use presumptions to enforce support orders.

Holding: The Court vacated the state appellate judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that whether the contempt was civil or criminal controls whether the state presumption violates due process.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to keep presumptions when contempt is civil and purgeable.
Requires courts to clarify sentencing so due process protections apply correctly.
May strengthen or limit tools used to enforce child support orders depending on classification.

Topics: child support enforcement, contempt proceedings, due process, state presumptions

Summary

Background

A parent stopped making court-ordered child support payments after a 1976 order. In 1984 a California court ordered him to pay $150 monthly and later charged him with nine counts of contempt for missed payments. The trial court found contempt on five counts, imposed 5 days’ jail for each (suspended), and placed him on three years’ probation with $150 monthly support and $50 monthly arrearage payments totaling $1,650.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether inability to pay is an element of contempt, whether the state law shifts the burden of proof, and whether the proceeding was civil or criminal for constitutional purposes. The California appellate court had ruled the state statute created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption in criminal cases. The Supreme Court held that the central question is the character of the relief: if the punishment is civil (coercive and purgeable), the presumption can be constitutional; if it is criminal (a determinate, punitive sentence), shifting the burden would violate due process. Because the record left unclear whether the sentence could be purged by paying arrears, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for clarification.

Real world impact

The decision does not finally resolve whether the presumption is permissible. It tells state courts to determine, on the facts and on remand, whether the contempt remedy was civil or criminal. If civil, states may continue to use similar presumptions to help enforce support orders; if criminal, constitutional protections would limit those presumptions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor dissented, arguing the proceeding was civil and that the presumption should be upheld to aid enforcement of child support orders, given practical enforcement difficulties.