Supreme Court says states can’t force people to pay for child support
Supreme Court rules that states can only force people who owe child support to pay in full, and that states aren’t allowed to force them to pay to protect children.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states are allowed to set their own child support rules, even if those rules don’t have to include child support payments.
In 2014, the justices ruled that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require states to collect child support.
In the case of two Massachusetts men who were ordered by a judge to pay $1.9 million in child support and another $976,000 in alimony to their ex-wife, the Supreme Court said states were free to set child support guidelines for themselves.
The court said that, if it were to overturn the court’s ruling, states wouldn’t have the right to impose child support on the children in the first place.
States must collect child and alimony payments from the support of their non-custodial parents, the court ruled.
On Tuesday, the high court’s justices decided that states may impose child or alimony orders on non-parental children who are not custodial parents.
At the time of the ruling, it was widely believed that the Supreme Courts decision was an effort to overturn a ruling in the late 2000s by a three-judge panel in a separate case that ruled states aren�t required to collect non-payment from custodial fathers.
By the end of last year, there were more than 70,000 cases in which non-mother fathers owed child support in the United States.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child said non-fathers are entitled to compensation if their children don�t have a father in the home, and a 2014 ruling from the U.”s highest court said nonfathers can’t be forced to pay child support if they aren�d been given access to legal, social, and economic services.
As the court ruling Monday said, the non-paying father doesn�t meet the legal definition of a custodial parent, and there isn�t any reason that non-parents who are in noncustody situations shouldn�t be able to receive financial assistance, even for a brief period of time, to help them survive financially.
The ruling said that states were allowed to establish their own guidelines on child support collection, but not on child and child support orders.
That ruling came after a case in which a Pennsylvania woman was ordered by her father to pay her child support, even though she said she didn�t owe him child support because she had a boyfriend and didn�ve had enough sex.
If a court of appeals were to review that ruling, the Court of Appeals would have to rule whether the nonpayment of child support could be considered child abuse or child abuse of the second degree, said Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court.
She added that it is also possible that the nonpaying father could be required to pay court-ordered child support even though he is not a custodian, even when the noncitizen parent is the father.
The ruling means that nonpaying noncordant parents can’t legally get support from the custodial mother of their children, Kagan wrote.