§75. Failure to pay child support obligation
A. This law may be cited as the "Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of Louisiana."
B. It shall be unlawful for any obligor to intentionally fail to pay a support obligation for any child who resides in the state of Louisiana, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than six months or is greater than two thousand five hundred dollars.
C.(1) For a first offense, the penalty for failure to pay a legal child support obligation shall be a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
(2) For a second or subsequent offense, the penalty for failure to pay a legal child support obligation shall be a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both.
(3) Upon a conviction under this statute, the court shall order restitution in an amount equal to the total unpaid support obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing.
(4) In any case in which restitution is made prior to the time of sentencing, except for a second or subsequent offense, the court may suspend all or any portion of the imposition or execution of the sentence otherwise required in this Subsection.
(5) The penalty for failure to pay a legal child support obligation when the amount of the arrearage is more than fifteen thousand dollars and the obligation has been outstanding for at least one year shall be a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars, or imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than two years, or both.
D. With respect to an offense under this Section, an action may be prosecuted in a judicial district court in this state in which any child who is the subject of the support obligation involved resided during a period during which an obligor failed to meet that support obligation; or the judicial district in which the obligor resided during a period described in Subsection B of this Section; or any other judicial district with jurisdiction otherwise provided for by law.
E. As used in this Section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Obligor" means any person who has been ordered to pay a support obligation in accordance with law.
(2) "Support obligation" means any amount determined by a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of the state of Louisiana to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child or children.
F. It shall be an affirmative defense to any charge under this Section that the obligor was financially unable to pay the support obligation during and after the period that he failed to pay as ordered by the court.
Added by Acts 2004, No. 801, §1; Acts 2008, No. 336, §1, eff. August 15, 2008; Acts 2010, No. 689, §2, eff. June 29, 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case:
State v. St. Pierre, 515 So. 2d 769 (La. 1987).
State v. St. Pierre, 515 So. 2d 769 (La. 1987).
· cites it 16× “" Defendant contends that he was not then aware that if he was not the biological father of his wife's children he could not be convicted of the crime charged, and consequently he entered a stipulation to pay monthly child support pursuant to R.S. 14:75. At the time he agreed to…”
Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011).
· cites it 4× “La.Rev.Stat. § 14:75. [5] This Court should treat this serious problem with the same gravity.”
State v. Stanley, 161 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “|, The defendant, Charles Elgin Stanley, was charged by bill of information with failure to pay his child support obligation, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:75. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information.”
State v. Lott, 615 So. 2d 452 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 13× “The issue presented is whether a juvenile court has the authority to make a pro-rata reduction of a LSA-R.S. 14:75 child support award retroactive to the date each child involved reaches the age of majority.”
State v. Scott, 508 So. 2d 101 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 12× “The stipulations acknowledged that the court would have the power to issue an order of support under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 14:75 and subjected each defendant to the contempt and criminal penalty provisions of LSA-R.”
State v. Smith, 492 So. 2d 1272 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to that article, a court may issue an order of support when *1274 the parent and the district attorney stipulate to the order, and no criminal proceedings need be instituted.”
Turner v. Busby, 883 So. 2d 412 (La. 2004).
“442, § 4, effective June 9, 1993, stated: In cases in which the responsible parent or other persons owing a duty of support and the district attorney stipulate to an order of support, the court shall have the power to issue an order of support under the provisions of R.S. 14:75…”
State v. Broussard, 487 So. 2d 1261 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “ARTICLE 75 LSA-R.S. 14:75 allows the court prior to trial to issue a support order in lieu of *1263 imposing punishment under LSA-R.”
State, in Interest of Lewis, 609 So. 2d 918 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “On February 20, 1987, defendant, pursuant to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 14:75, consented to contribute the sum of $30.”
State v. Creamer, 528 So. 2d 667 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 9× “The following statutes, LSA-R.S. 14:75 and R.S. 14:75.2 are alternative procedures to R.”
State v. Vallot, 926 So. 2d 98 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “1352 by 1993 La. Acts No. 442, § 2, and it became effective on June 9, 1993.”
State v. Thomas, 579 So. 2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The first is R.S. 14:75 which allows that the trial court, "with the consent of the defendant at any time prior to a trial" for criminal neglect, in lieu of 14:74 punishment may issue a support order requiring the defendant to support his child according to his means.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(A) — 2 cases
State v. St. Pierre, 515 So. 2d 769 (La. 1987).
“" Defendant contends that he was not then aware that if he was not the biological father of his wife's children he could not be convicted of the crime charged, and consequently he entered a stipulation to pay monthly child support pursuant to R.S. 14:75. At the time he agreed to…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(B) — 3 cases
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(B)(1) — 2 cases
State v. St. Pierre, 515 So. 2d 769 (La. 1987).
“" Defendant contends that he was not then aware that if he was not the biological father of his wife's children he could not be convicted of the crime charged, and consequently he entered a stipulation to pay monthly child support pursuant to R.S. 14:75. At the time he agreed to…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(C)(5) — 3 cases
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(D) — 2 cases
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:75(E)(2) — 1 case
State v. Stanley, 161 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
“|, The defendant, Charles Elgin Stanley, was charged by bill of information with failure to pay his child support obligation, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:75. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.