U.S. Justices May Review Support Case : D.A. Granted Freeze; Ruling by State Court Is at Center of Dispute

Orange County prosecutors, trying to make it easier for themselves to enforce child-support orders, won a victory from the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, two months after they were rebuffed by the California Supreme Court.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ordered a temporary freeze on proceedings in the case of Orange County resident Philip William Feiock, 43, who was accused of ignoring a court order and failing to make monthly child-support payments of $150 for his three children. The freeze will be in effect while the full court decides whether to review state appellate court rulings in the case.

Defense Won Appeal

In 1984, prosecutors, citing the original court order and the fact that Feiock was aware of it but still failed to make payments, had persuaded a judge to hold him in contempt. But defense lawyers appealed and won with the argument that federal law requires prosecutors also to prove that Feiock was financially able to make payments.

That ruling, by the state Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, was appealed by the Orange County district attorney’s office, but the state Supreme Court refused in August to hear the case.

“It would be premature to say that we have won,” Deputy Dist. Atty. William W. Bedsworth said Thursday. “What we have done is caught the court’s attention. We’ve convinced them that, on its face, it was a questionable call (by the California courts).”

O’Connor’s action was termed “procedural” by Richard L. Schwartzberg, the defense attorney who successfully challenged Feiock’s contempt citation in the lower courts.

Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court still must agree to hear the case, Schwartzberg said.

“Are the California Supreme Court and the California Legislature going to be told by the U.S. Supreme Court what to do?” Schwartzberg asked.

State appellate justices ruled in May that ability to pay is “an essential element” in the prosecutors’ case. The opinion, written by Justice Edward S. Wallin, held unconstitutional a state law that permitted the contempt finding once it was proved that Feiock failed to pay support and knew of the valid court order directing him to pay.

Bedsworth argued that state justices misread federal law.

“We told them (the U.S. Supreme Court) they need to hear this case because the California courts are misinterpreting federal law,” Bedsworth said.

In practice, the state court decision meant that going after defaulting spouses to pay child support became a much more costly matter. And according to statistics compiled by prosecutors last August, more than 19,000 Orange County residents owed more than $1.7 million in child support payments.

In the case of self-employed spouses who default in support payments--for whom government records of income rarely exist--the task of proving ability to pay became almost impossible, Bedsworth said.

“Are we going to send investigators out to follow them and watch how much they spend? How do you prove that somebody’s making money if he’s self-employed?” Bedsworth said.

County prosecutors have succeeded only twice in the last 12 years in persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeals, according to Bedsworth.

“It’s not a win, but it’s a very encouraging first step,” he said.