Hicks v. Feiock
United States Supreme Court
485 U.S. 624 (1988)
Feiock (defendant) was ordered to pay monthly child support for his three children but paid only sporadically over six years before stopping altogether; after being found in contempt on five of nine counts, he was sentenced to 25 days in jail, but the court suspended the incarceration and placed him on three years' probation conditioned on paying ongoing support plus an arrearage. Feiock argued the state law unconstitutionally shifted to him the burden of proving his inability to comply, an element of the contempt offense; the intermediate appellate court agreed and vacated the contempt order on due process grounds, the California Supreme Court denied review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Whether a court may impose relief, including imprisonment, in a child-support contempt proceeding without violating due process when the relief includes a purge clause giving the offender a chance to comply rather than face unconditional punishment.