In re: Maria G. Rivera, CC-13-1476-PaKiLa

Background

Maria G. Rivera’s minor son was detained in Orange County juvenile facilities for 593 days; California law (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 903) permits counties to recover limited costs of a detained minor’s support (food, clothing, personal supplies, medical) and § 903.1 permits recovery of legal representation costs.
Orange County billed Rivera $23.90/day for support costs and $2,199 for legal fees; after partial payment and Rivera’s failure to appear at a state hearing, the juvenile court entered judgment for $9,905.40 on July 20, 2011.
Rivera filed chapter 7 bankruptcy on September 12, 2011, listed Orange County as a creditor, received a discharge January 4, 2012, and the case was closed; Orange County later continued collection efforts assuming the debt was a nondischargeable domestic support obligation (DSO).
Rivera moved to reopen and sought an order to show cause to hold Orange County in contempt for violating the discharge injunction; the bankruptcy court issued two tentative rulings: first finding a violation, then reversing to conclude the debt was a DSO under post-BAPCPA § 523(a)(5)/§ 101(14A).
The bankruptcy court entered an order adopting its Second Tentative that the debt is excepted from discharge as a domestic support obligation and denied the contempt motion; Rivera appealed.

Issues

Issue	Rivera’s Argument	Orange County’s Argument	Held
Did the bankruptcy court improperly allow further briefing/consideration of new authority at the OSC hearing?	Court abused discretion by permitting a new case to be raised late.	Court acted within discretion to seek further briefing so both sides could address recent authority.	No abuse of discretion; further briefing and consideration were proper.
Did the court err by entering Orange County’s proposed order without expressly ruling on Rivera’s objections to form?	Local Rule required explicit ruling/acknowledgment before entry.	Local Rule permits the court to decide objections without a hearing; entry was within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; entry resolved objection implicitly and matched the court’s oral ruling.
Is the debt for juvenile detention costs and legal fees a nondischargeable domestic support obligation under § 523(a)(5) and § 101(14A) (post-BAPCPA)?	The debt was discharged: § 523(a)(5)’s “domestic” scope and pre-BAPCPA precedent mean debts payable to a government are dischargeable.	BAPCPA broadened § 523(a)(5)/§ 101(14A) to include debts owed to governmental units and support provided by government; thus county’s claim is a DSO.	Debt is a nondischargeable domestic support obligation under amended § 523(a)(5)/§ 101(14A); affirm.
Should the court follow In re Rosen (post-BAPCPA bankruptcy decision finding similar county debt dischargeable)?	Rivera urged following Rosen.	Orange County argued Rosen misapplied pre-BAPCPA precedent and ignored BAPCPA changes.	Rosen was rejected; Ninth Circuit panel followed statutory text and state law indicating the costs are in the nature of support.

Key Cases Cited

In re Jerald C., 678 P.2d 917 (Cal. 1984) (pre-amendment California Supreme Court holding confinement costs were for societal protection, not support)
Cnty. of San Mateo v. Dell J., 762 P.2d 1202 (Cal. 1988) (California Supreme Court upholding amended § 903 and characterizing listed recoverable expenses as support/maintenance)
In re Chang, 163 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1998) (nature-of-debt support inquiry considers relevant state law characterization)
In re Leibowitz, 217 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2000) (county child-support-type claims can be nondischargeable where they benefit the child)
DeKalb Cnty. Div. of Family & Children Servs. v. Platter, 140 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 1998) (pre-BAPCPA Seventh Circuit holding county juvenile detention claim dischargeable; discussed by court and rejected here)
Cnty. of El Dorado v. Crouch, 199 B.R. 690 (9th Cir. BAP 1996) (pre-BAPCPA BAP decision applying literal pre-2005 § 523(a)(5) to discharge county claims)