A lawyer for a man accused of being in over his head in child support disputes said Monday that a federal judge in Louisiana could have ordered the man to pay child support but decided against it.
Jesse Pitaro, a former federal prosecutor who now works in the family law division at St. Bernard Parish, told The Wall St. Journal that he had asked a federal court in Louisiana in August for a judge to order a child support order to be made, but that the judge did not agree to that request.
Pitaro said the family court should have been aware that there were several cases in which the father could have been ordered to pay his ex-wife’s child support.
“The judge in that case was not aware of any other instances where he had ruled against a family court in this country,” Pitaro told The Journal.
The family court judge told the man, who was charged with child support in a separate case, that the father was not entitled to child support under Louisiana law, the lawyer said.
Pitaro said he then asked the judge to consider the child support issue in the case and make the order, but the judge declined.
Pitarro told the newspaper he was not sure how long he would wait before getting a response from the judge. “
I don’t think the judge would have made that decision in a different case.”
Pitarro told the newspaper he was not sure how long he would wait before getting a response from the judge.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Louisiana ruled that a judge in another case did not have the authority to make the child abuse order.
In that case, the father in question was ordered to have visitation with his children by a judge and was ordered by a court to pay the child-support payments to his ex wife.
The father ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of child support arrearages and paid child support and a court ordered him to pay an amount that was larger than the actual child support owed.
In that case and others, courts ordered payment but were unable to make a court order because the man had not made child support payments, or because the order did not provide for the payments to be sent to the woman’s address, Pitaro wrote in a court filing.
The father, who is white, had previously been in trouble with child-abuse laws and had been ordered not to visit his children, Pitado wrote.
He said he had been told by the judge that if he did not comply with the order by the end of June, he would be subject to criminal prosecution.
Pitado also noted that the man was not charged with any crime.
Pitcher, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation by the father, said he was still considering a lawsuit against the court.
The lawyer, who said the father had paid child-supply money and had not violated the child custody order, said that if the court orders child support, Pitalo should also be required to make child support available to the father.
If the father does not make payments, the family courts would then take on the responsibility of paying the father’s child-related expenses, he said.
In a statement, the federal judge presiding over the child issue in that lawsuit, James G. Biermann, told Pitaro that he was wrong to refuse Pitaro’s request.
“This court will not issue a child custody or child support decision that does not comply, in the interest of justice, with this court’s decision in this case,” Bierman wrote in an email.
“The court cannot make a child-custody order based solely on the father not paying child support.”
Biermann said he would not appeal Pitaro�s request for a judicial review.