Barron

State of Ohio v. Barron

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·52 Cal. App. 4th 62·60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342·97 Daily Journal DAR 759·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 495
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1997F023873California5,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

Joseph Barron, Jr. (defendant), a noncustodial parent of a minor child, complains regarding the trial court’s order requiring he pay support arrearages pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350, subdivision (a)(2). The root of defendant’s equal protection and due process violation claims is that he is required to pay support to the custodial parent for his minor child in excess of the amount actually paid out by the state. Defendant correctly observes that noncustodial parents whose children receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits are treated differently from noncustodial parents whose children do not receive AFDC benefits. However, this disparity in treatment is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose: conforming California’s child support recovery scheme with federal law, thereby ensuring the state’s continued access to matched funds from the federal government. We conclude section 11350 is not an arbitrary imposition of pecuniary liability on defendant. Instead, it is a valid exercise of legislative power, mandated by federal law and tailored to impact on the precise individuals (defendant) who are responsible for the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.