Court Opinion

ID: 9700436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:28:23.395156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:09.139500
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result. I agree the issue in Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299 (N.D.1990), was whether incarceration of an obli-gor constituted a change of circumstances so as to justify a reduction in child support. Because of the statutory changes discussed in the majority opinion, I also agree whether or not incarceration is voluntary is no longer as significant as it was in Koch. However, the basic question remains whether or not incarcerated obligors should accumulate ar-rearages in support payments when they are confined and unable to earn sufficient money to pay the support. The child support guidelines presumably specify amounts the obligor can or could pay if fully employed.
In Hoster v. Hoster, 216 N.W.2d 698, 702 (N.D.1974), the Court quoted with approval the following statement by the Supreme Court of Washington in Bowers v. Bowers, 192 Wash. 676, 74 P.2d 229, 230 (1937):
“ ‘While, in these cases, it is the policy of the law to require fathers to adequately provide for their families, it is not the policy of the law to impose upon them obligations which they cannot perform.’”
I do not believe it is wise to release obligors from prison with an arrearage in child support so large that it is inconceivable the obligor will be able to earn enough to pay it.
Although the majority in Koch is not the unanimous position of jurisdictions considering this issue, see, e.g., Pierce v. Pierce, 162 Mich.App. 367, 412 N.W.2d 291 (1987), the result here appears to be an equitable one, i.e., it recognizes the reduced income of the obligor as a result of incarceration but does not totally relieve the obligor of child support payments as a result of that incarceration.