The Michigan Supreme Court upholds the “impossibility” defense to felony nonsupport charges. In Michigan, it is a felony to fail to pay child support in the amount or at the time it was ordered. Statutorily there is no defense to this crime. The problem is that many well-intentioned parents, who are doing the best they can, are charged with felony nonsupport by relentless, unscrupulous prosecutors who care nothing about ruining a parent’s life for the sole purpose of improving their boss’s chances of advancing in politics. It’s an example of governmental prosecution out-of-control.
Although the prosecutors and the attorney general in the State of Michigan have taken a position that there is no defense possible to these charges, the Supreme Court of Michigan has stood up for the rights of well intended parents who, through no fault of their own, were unable to pay all or part of their support obligations despite their best efforts. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled, “We endorse the well-established common-law defense of impossibility as the proper defense to felony nonsupport.”
A defendant cannot be held criminally liable for failing to perform an act that was impossible for the defendant to perform. When it is genuinely impossible for a defendant to discharge a duty imposed by law, the defendant’s failure is excused. While many courts are reluctant to grant motions to dismiss these charges, a credible, experienced and aggressive defense lawyer is the best hope in trying to get these charges thrown out of court.
The defense attorney must convince the judge or a jury that a defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable efforts to comply with the family court order, but could not do so through no fault of his or her own. Defendants who hope to use the defense of impossibility in a felony nonsupport case, must prove they made all reasonable efforts, and use all resources at their disposal, to comply with their support obligations. For the payment of child support to be truly impossible, a defendant must explore and eliminate all the reasonably possible, lawful avenues of obtaining the revenue required to comply with the support order. Defendants must not only establish that they cannot pay, but that theirs are among the exceptional cases in which it was not reasonably possible to obtain the resources to pay.
Factors that must be considered relative to a claim of impossibility include the following:
- whether the defendant has diligently sought employment;
- whether the defendant can secure additional employment, such as a second job;
- whether the defendant has investments that can be liquidated;
- whether the defendant has received substantial gifts or an inheritance;
- whether the defendant owns a home that can be refinanced;
- whether the defendant has assets that can be sold or used as loan collateral;
- whether the defendant prioritized the payment of child support over the purchase of nonessential, luxury, or otherwise extravagant items; and
- whether the defendant has taken reasonable precautions to guard against financial misfortune and has arranged his or her financial affairs with future contingencies in mind, in accordance with one’s parental responsibility to one’s child.
The existence of unexplored possibilities for generating income for the payment of the court-ordered support suggests that a defendant has not raised a true impossibility defense, but merely an assertion of inability to pay (which is not a defense). To be entitled to a jury instruction on this affirmative defense, a defendant must present convincing and credible evidence from which the judge or jury could conclude that it was genuinely impossible for the defendant to pay the support. Assuming a defendant has made this threshold showing and is entitled to an instruction, then the defendant may be exonerated if the trier of fact finds that the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that it was genuinely impossible for him or her to comply with the family court order for each and every violation within the relevant charging period.
Bond or Bail in Felony Nonsupport Cases
The law dictates that a defendant may be released on bond if he or she is able to pay a bond in the amount of 25% of the total arrearage. In practicality, for most defendants charged with these offenses, a 25% bond amounts to a denial of bond because the sum of money required is just too much to attain. There is a little known provision in the law that gives the defense attorney the ability to argue for a significantly lower bond if “good cause” can be shown. In practicality, this is not a high burden and it is generally in everyone’s best interest if the defendant is out on bond and can stay employed. Do not be sold out by a lawyer who is not willing to fight for every possible advantage for his or her client, the lawyer should be fighting to have their client out of jail and on bond.
Michigan Felony Nonsupport Defense Attorney
If there is not a legal defense to a felony nonsupport case, there are many ways for a good defense lawyer to mitigate the damages. The Defense Team with LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. has negotiated outright dismissals of these cases. In other cases, the team has convinced the prosecution to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor. Additionally, the defense lawyer also has to be able to convince the sentencing judge not to create conditions of probation and repayment to be so difficult that the defendant is set up for failure. At LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. we consider it a top priority to protect our clients and prevent a court from ordering a sentence that is too difficult for a defendant to handle.
If you or someone you love is charged with Felony Nonsupport in Southeastern Michigan and you are interested in retaining aggressive and successful defense counsel, please do not hesitate to call LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. for a free consultation at (248) 263-6800 or complete a Request for Assistance Form and a highly experienced criminal defense lawyer will promptly contact you.
