believe that parents discharging in bankruptcy debts imposed upon them for their child's involuntary incarceration was such a big problem that as part of the bab c p a amendments  specifically amended the bankruptcy code to make certain that these types of debts are non dischargeable in bankruptcy for numerous reasons the statute can't be interpreted in that manner and by this appeal mr baer is not asking this court to make a radical decision reaffirm that the bab c p a amendments of two thousand and five did not make and in reality did not intend to make the type of debt imposed upon visitor very here non dischargeable in bankruptcy but before we get into the weeds on the exact statutory language and parsing the provisions of the statute it's important to take a step back and to understand what the purpose and what the goal and what the role domestic support obligations play in  it's simple and it's very straightforward it's to protect spouses and children from being without support it's to ensure that deadbeat parents and former spouses can't simply file a bankruptcy case to walk away from those types of obligations that stem from court ordered support obligations to support child support that arose in the context of a family law proceeding like a dissolution of marriage and ultimately the very unfortunate breakup of the family in fact the  platter case from the seventh circuit which is cited in the briefs very eloquently states what the purpose of domestic support obligations play in a bankruptcy case i'm quoting the unquestionable purpose of section five twenty three  ensure that spouses former spouses and children receive support even though a support provider has declared bankruptcy so against that backdrop and understanding now what the overall purpose goal and role that domestic support obligations play in a bankruptcy case a natural question arises why is the government even involved what role does the government play with respect to non dischargeable domestic support obligations and bankruptcy well they actually pay a pretty critical role but it's a very narrow one traditionally the government has been taken assignment of those court ordered support obligations spousal support orders child support orders and gone out by virtue of being the ass and he and collected that debt on behalf of the of the custodial parents and the children to whom that  entitle this makes sense the government's in a much better position to do that they have a lot more resources they have a lot more tools at their disposal and unfortunately as is the nature of the game a custodial parent and a child who is in desperate need of that support is probably have usually limited means to go out and collect that themselves so the government steps in takes a sign of the debt and goes and does that job for them and there's a strong policy behind that so this policy is so strong actually that platter the seventh circuit decision that i mentioned before outlines this this is assignment mechanism in great detail and i actually said the congress amended the bankruptcy code way back when response to a split of authority on whether those debts that were assigned to a government entity should be non dischargeable in bankruptcy case and indeed they are what orange county wants to now take this traditional framework and significantly expand that framework to now encompass essentially all debts not just signed debts all debts that are owed to the government that even come within the broad realm of support obligations and make those non surgical obligations and in doing so they are attempting to expand that framework to include the exact types of debts at issue here the debts impose upon mr vera by virtue of her child's involuntary incarceration in an orange county juvenile facility which this this an expansion is unwarranted those debts have always been discharge so as we turn to the language of the statute itself orange county is one of the only argument is the plain language is that of the statute and by statutes i mean five twenty three a five and one to one fourteen a dictate the result that it's seeking in that these costs of incarceration on official read in the statute deem those deaths on the surgical now mr very knowledge that an isolated facial reading of one hundred fourteen eight which defines domestic support obligation on its face does seem to support orange county's position so from a very high level orange county's position makes sense but in addition to the policy arguments that mr various outlined in her brief the language of the statute isn't as plain as orange county would want this court to believe why there are several issues first is the issue of support in the statute to be an honest chargeable domestic support obligation the debt has to be in the nature of support orange county wants this court to believe that support now encompasses any money regardless of what the true nature and character of that money is wants it to be discharged or not these types of debts that are at issue here are not within the traditional realm of support obligations because they didn't arise from a family law context they're not a spouse or child support order for more perspective as is well established we always look to the underlying state law to get a feel in a bankruptcy case what the true nature and character of a debt is this debt here was statutorily created by the california welfare and institutions lie for the specific purpose of protecting the fiscal integrity of the county or actually of state government as a whole so what's wrong with that there's nothing wrong with protecting the physical and fiscal integrity of a state government or government unity is a government entity is perfectly fine but its application to being a domestic support obligation whether that obligation is non dischargeable in a bankruptcy the fallacy of orange county is argument lies in in the essence of protecting the fiscal integrity of the county itself the well california welfare and institutions code itself provides that if the parents of the incarcerated minor doesn't have the collection of this debt post ms rivera's discharge after mr very see for discharge and we contend that this mr very contents of this debt is not a not a non dischargeable domestic support obligation thus it was discharged as a as any other general unsecured debt would be in the bankruptcy case because orange county sought to collect what ms rivera thought and what we contend the law says is a discharge orange county would be liable for a violation of the discharge injunction in the bankruptcy guess and so the issue arose because the trial court the bankruptcy court said we have to make a determination on whether debt constitutes a non dischargeable domestic support obligation because if it does then orange county could not have violated the discharge injunction because a non dischargeable debt may be collected even after the institutions code where the debts that are at issue here are only imposed upon those parents with the ability to pay so orange county will conduct and sensually a financial hearing on whether or not the parent has the ability to pay the debt here we contend and as we put in our briefs that the virtue of filing a bankruptcy case is of itself a clear indicator that mr barrett does not have the ability to pay  request a hearing it is my understanding that ms rivera a hearing hearings were scheduled and through for various reasons mr vera was unable to attend the hearing and there was the county made  that's my understanding and is that worse she could've raised the found some of she didn't have the ability to pay she could have been in a financial hearing yes is that waived by the default judgment we i'm not we're  not representing her in that in the stake or capacity but we would argue now that there is a future ability to revisit whether mr vera has the ability to pay those costs if that were even there were determined that she whether warrants county was waiving its claim in its entirety or whether they could still assert a claim and assert that it was a nonstarter will do that even though they wouldn't pursue collecting that debt against mr vera you know  on a legal principle on whether or not in the reason why we're pursuing this is to get a determination on whether or not these costs of incarceration or by law nondestructive all domestic support obligations in a bankruptcy there was a determination by the state court in july of two thousand and eleven that mr bradley a financial hearing in which the court determined she had the ability to pay at least found that she was responsible for the debt she didn't appear contest that right there were seven notices sent to her by order of the court proceeding that hearing ordering her to meet with the one count orange county probation department to discuss her financial situation and she did not appear for any of those seven instances and then the matter proceeded before before the juvenile court judge the superior court and that hearing and i was noticed as well and she did not appear for that hearing and there was a did issue order that she be responsible for those funds so that stands and that was prior to her  judgment for nine thousand nine hundred five can you explain that i am saying is at the time that that don't i'm trying to parse that out myself but at the time that some of those things had not yet been paid well i mean are you here trying to get one thousand nine hundred five or you're down to three thousand five hundred twenty eight because it's pretty much a waste of our time over that amount my understanding from probation not the full amount because some has been paid subsequent to the judgment so that the remaining amount the amount that is is owed is a six thousand four hundred thirty four dollars now if i may i would like to start out with the proposition that this was brought as a motion for sanctions now the bankruptcy court determined in part that regardless of any interpretation of section five twenty three a five and the i well it will be the kind of interpretation was correct subject to contempt or sanction ability and that decision has not actually been appealed to for this court it was a motion for sanctions that was the night of on the basis that the county should not be held in contempt so that still stands and in addition i would add that the of course this was there's been a published decision by three bankruptcy court judges as well as a determination by the bankruptcy court that the county was correct on the law so the decision no matter what the courts position on five twenty three a five as  no money back for their children because now i will step back with the father he did meet with a county there was a financial germination and then he was put on a payment plan of the statute does the that's at issue if you go out on the street the only of the four promise the only that one it issue is the nature of support if you were to go out on the street here although this is not the busiest street and ask someone i what kind of obligations do you think are those that are for child support people would say food clothing medical care things of that nature not necessarily in your voluntarily incarcerated i mean if she were if she had the kid  she wouldn't necessarily have to pay twenty three dollars a day this is your it's kind of a number that's not real but i would say that congress could have made that caviar and didn't it says in the nature of support including assistance provided by a governmental unit now there's the cases as we know there spencer air fourth flatter carlson burton that talked about this juvenile context and said if congress wants to expand the scope of  ninety nine which involved the former five twenty three eighteen and under that paragraph debts owed under state law to a state or municipality that are a in the nature of support and and and be enforceable under part d of title for the social security act are deemed nondestructive of that so those debts related specifically to debts such as the government's involvement in recovering child support now in its amendments congress enforceable under the social security act therefore it is one simply in the nature of support so this idea that has to arise in the context of of that limited child support situation is no longer  at statute the nature of support this is prior of course to the amendments it said congress created an anomaly under the policy of the discharge a parent cannot use bankruptcy as a means to dissolve a debt that relates to the support of the child on the other hand a fresh start allows them to dissolve their own personal debts now five twenty three eight five created a policy conflict and that it left out governmentally and from the equation that is someone who says that is owed to a spouse or someone else would not survive but bankruptcy otherwise could be used as a means to dissolve a debt under to the government support of the child when it when the government of the unit is issue and so specifically in the context of this statute the court said the way to resolve this conflict is to amend have congress amend the statute such that it relates to debts arising from or at least that it expands it to include governmental units and that actually invokes the policy of the ninth circuit before this was amended and again i would refer to the leave in which case that was a case in which orange because the nature of the debtor was not of in importance it was whether the nature of the debt was in the nature of support and also in the evil which the court determined when analyzing whether something in the nature of support you don't look to the question of affordability that involve the father he said what i can't pay my child support obligations in the future if you're going to make it so i have to pay this prior debt and the ninth circuit said no the question of whether something in the nature of support is whether the basis of the debt benefited the child not section nine zero three relates specifically to actual costs incurred by the county for food food preparation clothing personal supplies and medical expenses and so that is a debt that arises from the benefit to benefit the child now i knowledge under the old section ninety three which related broadly to recovery for care support of maintenance which the california supreme court said was overly broad  might not fall within the ambit of five twenty three a five but section nine of three narrowly terrell's it tailors it such that those are limited cost there's a limit cost of support the statutory change is demonstrated expand it to be no doubt relate to support and they demonstrate a policy conflict between the overall design of discharge from support debts and five twenty three five congress can step in to do that and it appears that congress could do so in this case now as to the idea avivim added legislative history of course this court need not go to legislative history where the language of the statutes pla i'd submit that if there was this congress said hey our federal court has had to be painted green and there was zero legislative history you might say that's a ridiculous statute but it doesn't mean you can say why don't know why they did it they did it and we would have to follow it orange county is not king khan is not compelled to go after mr rivera for those that would orange county is trying to do is use the bankruptcy code and stretch the bankruptcy code as far as humanly possible under their before it's wasn't the thrust and it wasn't the purpose and it's not the overarching goal of protecting domestic support obligations in a bankruptcy case so just to reiterate the point that i made earlier is mr vera's not asking the court to make a radical decision here simply asking the court to interpret the statute consistently with all of the other case preety thousand and five case law that said these obligations are dischargeable in bankruptcy and to reaffirm that those amendments didn't have the expansive effect of what orange county claims that they do and give orange county the ability to pursue debts as small as three thousand dollars against people who don't have the ability to pay the debts post discharge should we reach the legislative submit on that point is that the legislative history is explicitly silent on this issue interesting the silent on this issue this this court has said before that if there were some drastic changes made to a  statute and this would be one of those drastic changes if the court were to adhere to orange county's reasoning it would be a drastic change there would least be some mention somewhere in the legislative history there is no evidence to show that the these  i do not know the answer to that i want to thank you in your firm for your pro bono representation i thought you were out a superb brief you may when you may lose but we really appreciate the effort to think your honor we really appreciate that and we appreciate the