OC Judge Reversed For Cruel Treatment of Ex-Husband in Child Support Case

Categories: Court, Main, Moxley
queen-on-her-throne.jpg
Let him eat cake.
By 2010, Southern California home building executive James E. Lockington lost 99 percent of his $14,500 monthly income, short sold his house to prevent foreclosure, loaded his credit cards with debt and moved into his sister's house to avoid becoming homeless, but Superior Court Judge Ronald P. Kreber didn't give, well, a hoot.

Despite Lockington's dire condition--his monthly income fell to just $300, Kreber refused to allow him to modify his court-ordered $2,074 monthly child support payments to his ex-wife, Tricia, whose monthly income topped $7,500. Showing no sympathy, Tricia said her ex-husband should get multiple jobs at places like Starbucks or Target to continue to supply her the money. She also accused him of a pornography addiction, according to court records.

During an August 2010 hearing about Lockington's request, Kreber acknowledged the man's dire financial shape, but stated he thinks "the children are entitled to the same lifestyle that they had before."

He told the man to get a job a Starbucks and didn't care that he'd strenuously tried to get another high-paying job.

Kreber added that he didn't think it would be "right" to calculate into the child support equation the fact that Lockington had lost his income.

Lockington appealed the ruling and, in a 15-page, Dec. 27 decision, a California Court of Appeal based in Santa Ana determined that Judge Kreber "abused his discretion" by relying on an "erroneous" understanding of the law.

"A trial court must evaluate a request to modify child support based on the parent's current financial circumstances, not the financial circumstances that existed during the marriage," wrote Justice Richard Aronson on behalf of a three-justice panel that included justices William Bedsworth and Kathleen O'Leary. "The court cannot require James to pay an amount in child support he clearly has no ability to pay."

--R. Scott Moxley / OC Weekly

My Voice Nation Help
89 comments
Gary
Gary

Good article. Gary Karlin

Cranemike
Cranemike

May the rotten cunt x "wife" choke and somebody please kill that fucking liberal cocksucker judge.....probably another god dam jew.

ScottAdler
ScottAdler

There's just one thing I don't understand -- why isn't Judge Kreber under investigation for judicial misconduct?

I certainly hope that this idiot isn't hearing any more family court cases.

SoCal2002
SoCal2002

First of all MEN are not the gatekeepers of birth; all they can do is supply the "drops of life". Even if they want kids, it's up to the woman to allow this to happen.

Regarding the various types of family support. Women/moms/spouse would approach the family support issue completely different if fathers were treated equally in court.  Child/spousal support can be very lucrative, so it makes sense to divorce and "take the kids" [early], as this would more than likely guarantee a certain level of additional income for the foreseeable future. 

Divorce, and out of wedlock child births would decline if the male's chance in court was equal to the female.  Women (in general) would think twice about trying to take men to court with hopes of scoring an early income stipend.

PumpNDump
PumpNDump

The fact remains that the "pornography addiction" (and we all know that was a guaranteed red herring floated by his ex-wife loser to disparage him, and almost certainly NOT true, just like when so many women are told by their counsel to make false accusations of abuse and/or false accusations of child abuse/molestation, which are almost always unsubstantiated and utterly false) has NOTHING to do with a child support obligation.   Any comment otherwise is ludicrous, uninformed, myopic, shrill, histrionic and utterly stupid. 

The fact is that his income has substantially changed, as has the marketplace.  This makes me so happy I am happily divorced and that I required my ex-wife to sign a prenuptial agremeement which protected my income, assets, intellectual property and contained a waiver or spousal support.  Marriage is very risk, utterly pointless and a waste of time for a man with means, money, a career and assets.  Divorce is the transfer or unearned and undeserved assets, plain and simple.  At least the appellate court got it right.

Frank Dodd
Frank Dodd

Actually this is a great opportunity for any child support obligor to have the courts adjust their support payments. Citing a current abuse of discretion case ruling by the California Appellate Courts is the next best thing to having the law rewritten. If the judge refuses to acknowledge the evidence the next step would be to recuse the judge. If the judge refuses to recuse himself the last step would be to file a complaint for judicial misconduct with the judicial commission which would possibly not only open the door to suing the judge but may also result in having the judge rightly removed from the bench. By the way, you don't have to be a party to the original judgement to file a complaint against the judge. This would be a good time for the parents rights groups to step up and file a complaint. A concerted attack would be the best move to have judges like Kreber removed.

Ceemonkey
Ceemonkey

FamilyLawCourts.com is funny. She's for family law reform for the benefit of women, yet doesn't have a basic understanding of how child support is calculated. Discretionary income does not enter into the equation. Muckraking like this is laughable.

What's even more telling about her is that she accepts what a mother says on its face. Not so with men. She's a part of the Old Guard - families survive only on the blood and sweat of men.

Scott Steele
Scott Steele

Now that Jim Lockington's Porn addiction is plastered all over the internet, that could greatly hinder his chances of landing a half decent job when the prospective employer runs a background check.Good idea bringing that to light Tricia...LOL!

J.
J.

I don't think this has much to do with bad judgement or bias on the judge's part.  He's simply acting in the best interest of the state, which is to maximize as much Title IV-D Child support funds paid out by the federal government.  This pays his salary and funds the state family court, as well as provide additional revenue for the state fund.

Child support revenue is a key federal income generator for states.  The more child support is awarded, the more the states make.  Reducing child support awards between parties would in turn reduce state revenue. 

I would have to agree with some of the previous posters, not a good idea to have kids right now not just if you are a man, but for anyone who happens to make significantly more than your spouse.  The state will interfere once you get divorced and most likely order you to be a non-custodial parent.  That way they can order child support from you and in turn increase their own federal revenue share.

Ron
Ron

Why doesn't the child stay with the person who has more time available (father) and the higher earning parent (mother) then pays the child support? Isn't that what typically happens in "the lifestyle they had before"?

Thepatriarch
Thepatriarch

Of course no such decision for women, all they want is the money, whether the children gets to see some of that money is questionable.

" America, land of the free" my ass!!!!!!!!

Vhdavis
Vhdavis

Don't be the judge yourself unless you know ALL the facts!  There is a lot left out of this article and he is not a "poor guy"

Bored at work
Bored at work

Tricia is no doubt a money hungry cold person. Even if Jim did work multiple jobs at places like Starbucks or Target, the money he would earn would be minimal.She earns 90K a year and is upset that her lavish lifestyle is no more.Then again, most overweight women are cruel.

Libertylaw
Libertylaw

Hello, there are situations where the judge can impute income.  Here, however, there did not seem to be any evidence that Father had the ability to replace his earlier income.  Again, however, there may have been some evidence that Father pissed alot of his money away thus loosing sympathy with the judge.  I WILL KNOW MORE WHEN I READ THE CASE.

asdgasdgdsa
asdgasdgdsa

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. Let's Facelift bar! ( http://fashion-long-4biz.com )Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $33 UGG BOOT $50 Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $33 Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36 T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16 Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$30 Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16 New era cap $16 ATO shoes $42 Gucci shoes $42 ,prada shoes $40 NBA jerseys $33 ,NHL jerseys $29 YSL shoes $85 Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18 Accept paypal payment, accept Credit card payments, electronic check payments. FREE SHIPPING ( http://fashion-long-4biz.com )

Ilikehoney6
Ilikehoney6

"...to supply her money."  as if the children need no support from the other half that created them.  this article, along with the writer, is a load of chit.  sure, his child support should be modified, clearly, but to imply that he's provider her money when she now makes more than him is stupid.

Familylawcourts.com
Familylawcourts.com

Not mentioned in the story?  Lockington's Extreme PORN addiction and how much money he spent both on his addiction and his treatment.  Which uh, might have failed.  Not mentioned in the article?  That Lockington was represented by his sister.  Not mentioned in the article?  That the mother had also experienced significant monetary losses in her field of employment.  Get it together Scott.

Justus4fun1971
Justus4fun1971

That is why I hate family law judges... They are playing GOD with people.. when themselves are nothing but power hungry dirtbags

Kategrasshopper
Kategrasshopper

That is the wrong queen, and an erroneous quotation. 

Stacey
Stacey

@mith:disqus .........my roomate's mother makes $70/hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her pay was $7232 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site http://nutshellurl.com/22i5

Angel McCauley
Angel McCauley

Wow $2,074.00 a month in Child Support I wonder how much of that money the child ever saw?  Tricia  by my understanding earns $7,500.00 a month before child support in my opinion she is not entitled to any child support and what is this thing called equal rights that woman have been given except when it comes to divorce because men are treated like it is 1940 by are elected judges    

Albacorewing
Albacorewing

I agree with the other poster.  Men should not marry, get women pregnant, live with them, or mix credit or money with them.  Most marriages end in divorce and the man gets ripped off.  This is just the way society is.  Any man who gets married these days is a fool.  It was not that way two decades ago, but now it is.  Men are at a terrible disadvantage in divorce court.  Fortunately this sort of ripoff never happened to me.

Dadzrites
Dadzrites

If anyone believes child support is for the children, you're living in a fantasy world.  Child support and its enforcement is all about government bureaucracy growth and turning it into an industry.  The head of the CA Child Support Enforcement Division in 1998 testified before Congress how all states need to include the "never welfared" middle class and upper class orders to maximize the federal funding the states get as reimbursement incentive for the most amount of support (and now alimony) ordered, collected & enforced upon.  Under Title 42 USC Section 658(a) the State submits how much money it awarded, collected and enforced at the end of each fiscal year. The feds send the State a check with "no strings attached".  The money is put into the General Treasury.  Who gets paid out of the Treasury  first?  State employees, specifically judges and child support employees that have a financial interest in the outcome of such cases.  Check your state treasury reports and find how much child support is directly and indirectly linked to judicial pensions and state employee pensions.  It's in the hundreds of billions.  States need to the money to offset their liberal spending habits because they've run out of taxpayers monies. 

The US Supreme Court has held, since 1927, that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a financial outcome in the case before them (Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill, In re Murchison, Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie, etc.), otherwise their orders are null & void and the judges can be charged with felony official misconduct and/or impeached.

Some will cry "how can we collect child support if judges are taken off the cases?"  Simple answer:

Eliminate the $10 BILLION per year child support enforcement industry, get rid of the "deadwood" nasty, arrogant & obnoxious child support enforcement workers, and send the monies saved each year by eliminating the bureaucracy directly to the child support recipients via a Social Security-style check or wire transfer--since child support laws fall under Social Security laws (and Social Security makes disabled parents account for how they spend the SS monies on their children under 18; whereby we can use the Social Security forms, SSA-6230 and convert them for child support accountability).  The "deadbeat dad" hysteria would be solved once and for all.

Dadzrites
Dadzrites

The husband won't get back the child support he overpaid.  At least he can get it credited.  Child support is the Great American Entitlement Scam that is currently flying under the radar.  Given we've had all these scams with banks, mortgages, Wall St., welfare fraud, Social Security Fraud, etc., child support fraud has been given a pass.  There are too many women making more than men that are getting tax free child support.  The way to stop it is to tax child support.  We'll see how many women want custody of the children then.

Titus Aurellius
Titus Aurellius

I hope the husband will get all that back child support money he had to pay out.  It should be reinstated to the moment his income dropped.  Yes, children need support, but we should not teach our children that their father's have to become homeless so they can have brand name clothes and better toys. 

Jimmy Freedom
Jimmy Freedom

The child support "industry" in the USA as reached a point where it will cause a civil war! Pol-lie-ticians are failing to address the injustices that are waged against fathers. 

the children are entitled to the same lifestyle that they had before.  <----------BullSh**t

Denise
Denise

one of the few occasions in which i have to side with the man. the wife was being vengeful. the same can be said of her. let her go get multiple jobs to keep her in the lifestyle she thinks the kids/she should have.judges are suppose to amend the support payment if the man can show his income has dropped. at the rate the judge/ex-wife were going, the man was going to drop dead from exhaustion.

Iggyschlepp
Iggyschlepp

He is still the presiding judge in my custody case. So far I get 4 hours of visitation a week since my ex lied out her ass about drug addiction which is not true. Everything I have presented to the judge he has completely ignored and took her motion and statements and the gospel truth. 

Scott Steele
Scott Steele

I agree with your post but, that Judge has absolutly no common sense, telling someone with no job, living with his sister to pay that amount. He may as well have said pay $ 10,000.00 per month, can't pay what you don't have.

Anti PC Police Brigade
Anti PC Police Brigade

Feminuts thought the system needed to punish men (and reward women) since feminutism was never about equality, it was always about female superiority

B_atwork
B_atwork

Facts:

A) Jim is the same man Tricia married (and divorced), she should have known about his addictions.B) Jim does not have the income to pay $ 2,074.00 per month...period.C) It is not Jim's facult the economy and to a bigger extent, the construction industry imploded.D) Tricia currently makes $ 90K per year, her kids attend one of the best School districts in So. OC. which includes living in the same area.Perhaps it's time she step off her ivory tower and live within her means, Jim's salary will never be close to what it was, so deal with it.E) Her whining about an issue that entails checks and balances is futile, to make an assinine statement about Starbucks and Target to make up the difference is sophmoric at best.

PumpNDump
PumpNDump

Honey, you're obviously late for your medication.

Kate6667
Kate6667

Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

DisgustedinCA
DisgustedinCA

For Heaven's Sake, sounds like you're "getting off" on pointing out a supposed porn addition, more than Mr. Lockington might have been getting off at all.

WHO CARES?!?!  Healthy adults watch porn on occasion.  Ms. Russell, unless YOU WERE THERE watching him beat off to hours upon hours of porn nightly, leave the subject alone.  Sounds like someone's jealous to me...or projecting her own porn addition or sexual frustration onto someone else?  Time to back off, lady.  No one cares that this guy's ex-wife accused him of watching porn.  Unless he was shown to be negatively impacting the children, directly, because of porn, it is a completely NON-RELATED subject and an unprovable point.

Point is, even if the parents had remained married, there is a strong likelihood at at some point one of the parents losing his/her job and suffering a reduction in income would have affected the children anyway.  They, and the ex-wife, DO NOT have the right to "enjoy" a lifestyle based on the income level of the FATHER before the divorce.  Everyone involved needs to live within their means, whatever those means are.  If Dad loses his job by no fault of his own, or his business goes belly-up, or he gets in an accident and has to collect disability instead of a full paycheck, well, THAT'S LIFE.  Mom is perfectly capable of working, and clearly does.  The judge in this case completely overstepped his bounds when he told the man to go and get multiple jobs so he could keep forking over money to his ex-wife.  That was inappropriate and unfair.  In many other cases, the father would have filed for a modification and if his income really were that far below his ex-wife's level, depending on how much parenting time he had SHE would be legally obligated to pay HIM child support.  Oh, Ms. Russell, try not to piss yourself with anger at the thought.  It happens.  And it's right to happen.  Fair is fair.

I hope Mr. Lockington is able to get some restitution for the pain he's been through for the last year.  Lord knows 2011 must have been a penny-pincher for him.

whocares?
whocares?

So why does the father have to pick up the mothers slack? why isnt she out working 3 jobs?

JayT
JayT

Uhhhh, read much?

The FOURTH SENTENCE of the article mentions the pornography allegation. But so what? What does porno have to do with the court of appeal ruling for the husband?

NOTHING!

That is why the court DIDN'T calculate it into its decision. It's a sensational side issue raised by a money hungry woman (with help from her money hungry lawyer) who rightfully lost HER UNCONSCIONABLE GRAVY TRAIN!

XXX

B_atwork
B_atwork

She needs the money to continue weekend stays at expensive spa's in Palm Springs...

TexasTexan
TexasTexan

Well, since you know all of the answers why aren't you running for public office? LOL! You're simplicity of the topic is idealistic!

Blossom
Blossom

Or make child support tax deductible for the parent who pays it. The custodial parent can qualify for, depending on their income, possibly an earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and child care credit, easily totalling $3,000 or more a year, while the non-custodial parent, who is paying child support, gets nothing.

TexasTexan
TexasTexan

Jimmy, who sais anyone was concerned about the same style of life he had before. This is more of an issues of obligors and obligees as oppose to moms and dads. People all know there are mothers who are Defendants as well. I have seen them as I work in the child support arena. Why would we be concerned that the obligee have the lifestyle he previously was able to afford? We all know that children cost money, husbands and wives or any other partnership know this when they bring a child home.

If child support is an industry, then whoeever invented it should be shot as we all know many child support Orders go unpaid, many obligees will never see their money, lt alone the children who outlive them when the arrears are reduced to Judgment due to death of the obligee (say when the child turn 35 to 40)

Child Support is really a simple concept and the law deems it to be enforcable. Have kids, pay money.

Funcuz
Funcuz

Why only one of the few occasions ?  I know why actually : It's because you're conditioned to believe that whenever there is any difference of opinion between a man and a woman , the woman must be the aggrieved party while the man must be the antagonist .  That's what everybody thinks and that's also why the douchebag judge in question decided that having no money to even sustain his own basic needs isn't a good enough reason for a man to stop paying his ex-wife money she doesn't need to support kids she probably thinks of as hers alone anyway .

Remember boys : Don't get married and this won't happen .  (Pre-nups get tossed all the time when men get to keep their things so don't rely on that)Gold-digging Western women can't take your money in a divorce if you never marry them in the first place .  And don't live with them either .  In fact , just save yourself the hassle and go abroad .  They still have real women in the less developed world (instead of short-haired , sweat-pants-wearing sofa hogs)

Familylawcourts.com
Familylawcourts.com

The Exhaustion the man was going to drop dead from, was from his porn addiction.  Which was mentioned in the Court's opinion, but not Moxley's piece.  Wonder why.  Oh, and the mother also experienced a significant loss of income in her field.  But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bias.

FishWithoutBicycle
FishWithoutBicycle

That's complete and utter bullshit! You have just proven you know absolutely nothing about the women's movement you misogynist moron! It was ALWAYS about equality...about women having the right to enjoy the same rights men like you take for granted! I believe my rights as a human being should not hinge on something as arbitrary as gender. That's it. So sorry that bothers you.

Iggyschlepp
Iggyschlepp

The suck part is this is my judge in my current custody battle were in I can't afford an attorney and am pro se and the ex has her father paying her legal fees for her $375/hr attorney. She makes $3000/month I make $1100/month and I have to pay her $300 in child support. She lives with her mother rent and bill free. I have to live in an apartment with two roommates and because of that I am denied overnights with our child. 

Dadzrites
Dadzrites

I ran for public office and lost because I was too honest.  My simplicity of the topic is idealistic?  You need to get your head out of the nether regions and brush up on the subject my "friend".  I've been involved in family rights for over 27 years as a litigant and constitutional law paralegal.  This information is a fact.  Since you can't disprove it, your claim to fame is to try and shoot the messenger.  Your intelligence belies your brains.

Dadzrites
Dadzrites

Yes, child support really is a simple concept.  Give custody back to men, and you have NO child support problem.  The parent who can afford them won't need to pay ransom to see his own children.  That's what Marxist-feminism has created.  Break up families.  Get dad out of the way.  Make dad pay ransom for his own children. Simple. 

If the law deems child support enforceable, why aren't perjury laws deemed enforceable in family court trials, especially if it is the female "testi-lying"?  Check your state statutes.  I bet you can find a statute that says that females can't be arrested in civil matters.  NJ has one.  So do about half the other states that I've researched so far.   If perjury is not enforceable in family courts, get rid of the statute altogether otherwised family courts are aiding and abetting in criminal and civil frauds.  None of the orders coming out of family court are valid anyway.

That's what Karl Marx envisioned--the state as "superdad".  Let the state pay support if they want control of my children.

PumpNDump
PumpNDump

familylawcourts, isn't time for your evening medication?  LOL

Scott Steele
Scott Steele

Her "significant loss" was from 11K per month to 7.5K per month, I don't consider that "significant"I do consider 14.5K down to 300.00 per month significant .Family law has a nack to spin the facts.

Kate6667
Kate6667

"But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bias."

You have nothing to say about the actual facts. Just the supposed porn addiction. Sounds like you're talking about yourself.

You just keep making the same post over and over. Still doesn't make any of it true.

Enddora41
Enddora41

The only reason there was any mention of a "porn addiction" at all was because the ex wife made the accusation. The opinion was about the support issue, and the judge misusing his power. The article states the mother was making more than $7500 a month. the ONLY reason her income decreased was due to the downward support modification.

This is about the misuse of judiciary authority. NOT about a supposed porn addiction that was made by a mother trying to gain an upper hand in family court.

If the situation was reversed, I would guess your reaction would be vastly different

xtrnl
xtrnl

She makes nearly 3 times as much as  you, and has virtually no expenses, and YOU have to pay HER. That makes no sense, at all. 'Tis misandry, straight up.

Xtrnl
Xtrnl

Good for you, Kate! Fair-minded women like you and my girlfriend are the reason why I could never be a misogynist.

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Fashion

Loading...