Ramirez v ramirez

Ramirez v ramirez - ISSUE If a parent is charged with contempt and put in probation with conditions but can not comply with the issued order should

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ramirez v. Ramirez 72 Cal. App. 3d 351, 140 Cal. Rptr. 108 FACTS In March of 1975, Mr. Ramirez was found in contempt for missing three court ordered child support payments. He was then sentenced to 15 days in jail, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed in probation with the conditions to keep current with his child support payments and to pay off the accumulated past due support in the amount of $837. In June of 1976 Mr. Ramirez petitioned the court to modify the order of child support, but the petition was denied based on the fact that he was in a state of contempt. PROCEDURAL FACTS Mr. Ramirez moved to request a writ of review on October 22, 1976, seeking to attack the contempt order, but it was denied. Mr. Ramirez then moved to file a motion to reconsider the refusal to hear his motion for modification, and a new motion of modification on January 20, 1977. That petition was denied as well. A peremptory writ was issued.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ISSUE If a parent is charged with contempt and put in probation with conditions, but can not comply with the issued order, should the parent be denied the opportunity to modify the support order? BRIEF ANSWER No, the parent should not be denied the opportunity to modify the support order if the court that reviewed the petition did not find him in contempt. REASONING When the parent in contempt files a petition to modify the child support order, and the court denies the petition but does not find him in contempt with the court as of that date, the parent should have the opportunity to show evidence of his financial status. A past contempt should not force the parent to continue to pay a support that he can not meet. HOLDING The respondent court was ordered to assume jurisdiction over petitioner’s application for a modification of the original child support order and to proceed in accordance with the opinion....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/10/2011 for the course PARALEGAL 202 taught by Professor Dunlap during the Spring '04 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online