Barth v. Barth

2 Citing cases

  1. Warwick v. Warwick

    438 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that a trial court's order requiring husband to seek and obtain employment did not violate constitutional prohibitions against involuntary servitude

    See 1987 Minn. Laws. ch. 403, art. 3, § 78, Minn.Stat. § 518.24 (1988) ("[if] the obligor disobeys the (maintenance or support] order it is prima facie evidence of contempt"); Gustafson v. Gustafson, 414 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987) ("Minnesota courts have statutory authority to enforce maintenance and child support obligations by imposing sanctions in civil contempt proceedings"); see also Cox v. Slama, 355 N.W.2d 401, 403-404 (Minn. 1984) and Barth v. Barth, 356 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (parents held in contempt for failure to pay child support are entitled to counsel when incarceration is a "real possibility"). In view of the supreme court's holding that maintenance and support obligations are not "debt" for which imprisonment is forbidden, the legislature's authorization of contempt proceedings, and the extensive case law implementing those contempt proceedings, including incarceration, we find no violations of the constitutional prohibitions against imprisonment for indebtedness.

  2. Henry v. Henry

    370 N.W.2d 43 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    1984). Incarceration is a real possibility if the judge, in fact, subsequently ordered it. Barth v. Barth, 356 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). At the point when incarceration is a real possibility, the trial court should immediately suspend the hearing to determine if the parent desires counsel. If the parent claims that he cannot afford counsel, the court should determine indigency by applying the standard enumerated in Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 5.02, subd. 3. If the court determines the parent is indigent, it must provide counsel.