Court rules in case of man held in contempt

Friday, Dec. 10, 2004 | 10:01 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A person cited for contempt of court and sentenced to jail for failing to pay child support is not automatically entitled to an attorney at the court hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court said it is up to the district judge to determine if the person is indigent and then an attorney could be appointed at public expense.

The case involved Charles Rodriguez who was ordered to pay child support when he was divorced in November 2001 from Nicole Eddowes in Las Vegas.

Rodriguez failed to make payments and in March 2004 Family Court Judge Steven Jones found him in contempt of court for nonpayment and ordered him to serve 25 days in jail. The judge allowed early release if Rodriguez made a payment of $10,000 of the $18,000 that was due.

Rodriguez appealed and the Supreme Court held the jail sentence in abeyance while it considered the case. Rodriguez said an attorney should have been appointed and he contested the contempt finding.

Justice Bob Rose wrote in the unanimous decision "that while a defendant in a contempt proceeding before the Family Court does indeed have an important liberty interest at stake, that interest is not so compelling as to require the appointment of counsel."

Rose said the case in the Family Court is not on par "with the personal liberty interests at issue in a criminal prosecution or criminal contempt hearing to warrant the right to appointed counsel in every case."

In this case, the court ordered Judge Jones to hold a hearing and make the findings whether Rodriguez is truly indigent and should be held in contempt. Rodriguez is to remain free until the judge rules.

In another child support case, the Supreme Court ruled that supplemental security income from the federal government may not be considered in determining support payments.

This income goes to the disabled, blind and those who are 65 and older. The recipient must have a physical or mental disability and be unable to work and may not have more than $2,000 in financial resources.

The court said the purpose of this program is "to provide a recipient with a minimum income for his or her own needs." This federal law preempts Nevada law, the court said.

The case involved the child custody fight and support payments of Amy B. Metz and Robert Metz. Family Court Judge Scott Jordan in Reno ruled in 2003 that the money received from Amy Metz from supplemental security income and social security disability benefits is exempted from computing child support.