"Wilful Failure to Pay Child Support" Under the Child Support Recovery Act

Legal Issue:

Whether the District Court erred in the conviction of the defendant for "willful failure to pay child support" under the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228(a).

Conclusion:

The defendant did "willfully fail to pay child support" under the Child Support Recovery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 228(a).

Facts:

The defendant is the father of two children, born during his marriage, which was dissolved in January 1993, but the two were separated as of February 1991. On March 22, 1992, the defendant's wife Lori Mayers obtained a judgment for child support against the defendant- Mathes, in the amount of $500.00 per month. The amount of the support was agreed upon by Mathes and set by the judge with the ability to be reassessed at any time. The defendant was aware of his child support obligations but neither paid the ordered support or asked the court for re-examination of the required child support amount.

In May 1995 a family court made a judgment against the defendant for back child support for $19,000, plus interest, fees, and court costs. Mathes was aware of the ruling and made no payment towards it. In July 1995, Mathes voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, releasing him from further child support obligations. During the time that child support was due the defendant was frequently unemployed, injured, and at one time incarcerated, however, he did have a few known jobs where he could have sent some of the child support due, Mathes had a yearly income of approximately $ 13,000.

Mathes contends that the government offered inadequate evidence to uphold his conviction, saying the government lacked substantial evidence that would indicate guilt of "'willfully' failing to pay (the) past due child support'" requirement. The defendant admits he knew of the order to pay, but that the government did not prove his ability to pay the support ordered. The defendant, lastly, contended that the government "failed to negate his good-faith belief that he did not owe the $ 20,000 in child support arrearages" ordered by a Louisiana family court.

Legal Reasoning/Rational:

The court used a standard of review to assess the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining a conviction. The standard evaluates whether the finding of guilt is upheld by "substantial evidence in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. United States v. Garcia, 135 F.3d 951, 955 & n.4 (5^th Cir.), cert. Denied, 141 L. Ed. 2d 752, 118 S. Ct. 2386 (1998).

The language of "willful failure to collect or pay" was taken from Federal tax crime language, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7202, 7203, the "willful failure standard of [the CSRA] should be interpreted in the same manner that the Federal courts have interpreted these felony tax provisions."

This provision requires that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the taxpayer does have an adequate amount of money to allow him/her to meet their obligation or to show that the taxpayer did not have sufficient funds during the time expense was due, due to a "voluntary and intentional act" not justified by the taxpayers financial situation. United States v. Poll, 521 F.2d 329, 333 (9^th Cir. 1975). The willfulness aspect in the tax felony statutes requires evidence of the intentional violation of the known legal obligation which provides the proof of criminal intent. U.S. v. Birkenstock, 823 F.2d 1026, 1028 (7^th Cir. 1987). The same standard that applies for failure to pay taxes is applied to failure to pay child support. Mathes answers to the questions concerning whether he knew of the child support show he willfully failed to pay. The knowledge shows intent.