The issue in this case was how to count the children that lived in the debtor’s home. Debtor and his children all lived in a big shoe box. The debtor had two children by a previous marriage. Not uncommon nowadays when the vows of marriage mean nothing, couples living in together to get to know each other, to find out if they should get married. In fact, why even get married when the guy already has all the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibilities. The guy gets to have sex for free which is really all he wants, irrespective of what he says. Trust me, I’m a guy. The girl thinks she’s a guy too until she gets pregnant, then she’s stuck with a souvenir, then the guy looks for another woman to play house with. True?

Debtor argued that it was “logical and fair” to rely on the Census Bureau’s definition of ‘household’ because the bureau was set up for the specific purpose of counting people. A-one, A-two, A-three, Count Dracula used to say when counting the arteries that he was going to suck on. Yummy!

“On the other hand, Congress used the word ‘household’ as opposed to ‘family’, ‘dependent child’, or ‘dependent’, all of which are used elsewhere in the surrounding and cross-referenced Code provisions. “Even Tarzan claims two chimps, three orangutans and one gorilla as his dependents…” the court said.

Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than five thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.