In the Interest of J.S.Q.W., A Minor Child--Appeal from 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00740-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.Q.W., a Child,
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 98EM504759
Honorable Juan Antonio Chavira, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 27, 2004

AFFIRMED

Appellant Charles Henry Willie appeals from the trial court's order reducing his past child support arrearage to judgment and ordering him to pay a monthly amount of $200.00 for child support and arrearage. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

1. Willie complains the trial court failed to make a reporter's record of the hearing. The judgment recites that the parties, Willie and Vickie Wood, the mother of the child, waived a record with the consent of the court. Although Willie now says he never agreed to waive the reporter's record, he did not preserve this objection at the time of the hearing. Accordingly, we take the recitation in the judgment as correct. See In re D.J.M., 114 S.W.3d 637, 639 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).

2. Willie says the trial court failed to take into account his heart condition which prevents him from working. Because there is no reporter's record, we presume the evidence presented to the trial court supports the judgment requiring Willie to make monthly child support payments. (1)

See In re J.A.G., 18 S.W.3d 772, 774 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.); Vickery v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 5 S.W.3d 241, 251 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied).

3. Willie argues the trial court's order for child support violates the Eighth Amendment because forcing him to pay support when he does not have the physical ability to work is cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Child support laws enforce a duty owed by the parent to a child; they do not constitute punishment. See Ex parte Duncan, 796 S.W.2d 562, 565-66 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (civil contempt for failure to pay child support is not punishment but remedial attempt to enforce the parent's duty). Additionally, because no record of the hearing was made, Willie failed to show that he is in fact being forced to pay child support in excess of his ability.

4. Willie next complains the judgment violates his Thirteenth Amendment rights because it forces him into involuntary servitude. U.S. Const. amend. XIII. A parent's duty to support a child was recognized long before the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment and has been traditionally enforced, even by imprisonment if necessary. United States v. Ballek, 170 F.3d 871, 873-74 (9th Circuit 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 853 (1999). Because child support is not considered a debt, but a duty, enforcement of that duty does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery. Id. Further, as we have noted, the record does not support Willie's contention that he is being forced to pay child support in excess of his ability to earn.

5. Finally, Willie urges that the judgment was issued without due process. Due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Knight v. Knight, 131 S.W.3d 535, 542 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.). Willie was present at the hearing and had the opportunity to be heard. No due process violation exists under these circumstances.

We overrule all Willie's issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Paul W. Green, Justice

1. The trial court ordered Willie to pay $64 per month on the arrearage and $136 in monthly child support for a total of $200 per month.