Divorcing Unemployed Dads Face Contempt Of Court

The loss of a job, or a serious decline in personal income can put a great deal of stress on a family. When a family breaks up or divorces the most common reasons are are Infidelity, claims of abuse, or financial circumstances.

With the economy tanking courts must address how divorcing parents will care for their kids. This is a challenging task, especially for Dads who are now trying to build their lives anew again, and moms who once relied on a husband to pay for the needs of children and the household.

The law gets sticky when unemployment comes into play, courts often require Dads to show proof that they are looking for work, and if those Dads are self employed than things get even more complex.

A divorced Dad with a business can have an "earning capacity order" that earning capacity is based on the testimony of witnesses and business records produced to the court as evidence of income potential. Once an order is established, and a weekly payment is set failure to pay can result in incarceration by way of contempt of court.

While there officially is no such thing as Debtors prison in America, "Contempt of court" is the equivalent of imprisonment at the will and discretion of any judge. Recently a man was sentenced to jail for six months under this rule, for yawning in court.

Once a court puts an order in place it expects that order to be obeyed. Even though an order based on an "Earning Capacity" is theoretical and not indicative of any present day facts, the court does not take the position of hearing excuses after the fact. The rule is simple, your business is expected to earn "X$" a month and if "X$" is not paid than a deadline is usually issued on Dad who must find the money or face being jailed.

With the time it takes to get things corrected, often having to hire an attorney and file hardship motions months can go by without any meaningful results. When hard times hit a family, and the economy and job opportunities dry up in tandem kids, dads, and broken families pay the price harder than anyone.

Milford's courts are no exception, at any given time there are scores of people in family court arguing this very issue. Attorney's at the courthouse indicated that the "threat of incarceration" is a "good rule" because this is an effective way to produce money for the custodial parents and the kids who need it.

There are no guarantees that the legal system can always help a distressed parent. There are many non-custodial parents who served their time in jail, and had their earning capacity reset.

However, all is not lost for kids because CT offers help for single moms. This help comes in the form of a Support Enforcement Office, a Victims Advocate and some social programs to financially assist the children of the custodial parent with health care, food stamps, and counseling. Unfortunately little help exists for dad especially in cases where parental alienation exists due to the animosity of a relationship.

Photo of Essex Family Court Judge James B. Convery

City Expects To Lose State As Tenant

The downtown state courthouse will be sold by the city back to the state for one dollar. This was an agreement that was reached 20 years ago, and the city was well aware of an expiring lease. The courthouse provided the city of Milford with $650,000.00 in rent.

The Milford courthouse was an idea that came about because of local businesses asking for the convenience of a local courthouse. Businesses found it inconvenient to drive to New Haven, the next nearest courthouse to conduct legal affairs. Jim Amann also recently touted that he received $3,000,000.00 "for development and land acquisition for the new Milford Courthouse Annex and parking area."

Parking has been the greatest concern, and largest inconvenience of having the State Courthouse in town. The local chamber of commerce also criticized the municipal complex has being "challenged" because of its lack of parking and said the state will have issues over the lot size and availability of the current parking spaces.

According to Rocco Frank Jr. the Independent candidate for State Rep in the 118Th, "it has been my experience in working for the state that most Courthouses have parking lots with spaces exclusively dedicated to virtually every state employee. In the Bridgeport and Stamford courthouse alone there are nearly 100 spaces each dedicated for Judges, Clerks, Social Workers, and staff. To have the state expect the city of Milford to give up that many spaces would be a hardship for the town."

Frank also said, "that judges also have security concerns and do not feel safe walking in an unattended parking lot back and forth to their cars, they preside on some very intense cases and are often at risk of public retaliation if they make a bad decision. These are things that must be considered in the wake of a change in that very area." Frank also said that he thinks it might be best if the courthouse relocated away from downtown in its entirety, and perhaps re-opened in West Haven or someplace on the Post Road where traffic and parking will not be as big of an issue. The city could then perhaps re-rent the place to a less demanding tenant or use it to save revenue by vacating existing buildings and relocating city departments."

Richetelli said that the "Courthouse deal made good sense 20 years ago, but today he is concerned over the loss in state revenue. He said the city will still pay us money but we can be assured it will be substantially less than the $650,000.00 we have become accustomed to." The final numbers that the city ends up with will mark yet another gap in the 2010 budget to be filled.

Photo of Milford Courthouse AKA G.A.22