California family law is its own beast, quite distinct in many ways from all other forms of civil law. I should know because I work for a family law attorney, and have written countless trial briefs, declarations, and points & authorities. Here's a quick and dirty on "normal" civil law on payment of debts:
A court may not impose punishment in a civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the terms of the order. Turner v. Rogers (2011) S. Ct. 2507. Thus, it is essential to the court's right to punish a person for contempt in disobeying an order of the court that the person has the ability to comply with the order. Application of Leavitt (1959) 174 Cal.App. 535. Whether it is within the power of the person to obey or comply with the order is a question of fact, which the court making the order has a right to determine. Ex parte Cardella (1941) 47 Cal. App. 2d 329.
And I'll leave out the citations from here on out because it's a PITA.
Now, here's family law spousal support rules:
Neither the Family Code nor the Penal Code specifically provides that failure to pay post-divorce spousal support shall be punishable by imprisonment. But “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” amounts to civil contempt. Contempt opens the door to jail. What about California's constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt? The courts hold that a court-ordered obligation to pay spousal support is a “familial support obligation” not a “debt” within the constitutional provision.
That said, if a party seeks reduction of spousal support, they have to file a Request for Order showing a material change of circumstances as to their ability to pay. What counts as changed circumstances is codified, but it in reality it varies, and the granting of the order is at the court's very wide discretion. However, we've gotten reductions based on retirement, unemployment, job change, etc. Often times, just filing can bring the other spouse to the table to get a reasonable reduction without a change of circumstance.
To say that men are made to pay disgusting amounts of spousal support isn't a joke. My boss is a woman and she is frequently aghast at the amount that women get awarded, even when the woman is our client. The current Dissomaster program is always too high in terms of spousal support and we can usually get a reduction from it (Dissomaster is a program that takes all the financials of the parties and spits out a support number), but frequently the man's income is cut by 50% or more.
It's a terrible system.
The only redeeming feature is that usually women are given a certain amount of time to get back on their feet, which is fair if the woman really dedicated herself to being a stay at home mom or if the husband encouraged her to not work, and in fact, she didn't based on reliance of her husband's income and promise to be wholly obligated to the financials. This allows them to go back to school or get back into the work force. So those disgustingly high amounts generally only last a few years. HOWEVER, it is common that at the end of that time period, the woman comes back and asks for an extension, which the court will usually grant, unless the man cuts a deal before going to court. And all things considered, it's almost always cheaper to cut a deal. Then a couple years goes by, and she'll come back again. Then he has to pony up another retainer. It is also common for her to have done little to actually get back on her feet.
This often goes on well past the time the children reach adulthood and leave the home.
But what happened in this guy's case? It sounds to me like he either a) willfully failed to provide what the court ordered him to, or b) he flat out didn't show up to mediation and/or several court dates. But it may be worse than that because if either of those things happened, the remedy is to simply deny his request, hit his bank account, and fine him. When someone genuinely can't pay what's ordered, the court will grant a reduction, even if temporary. So this guy pulled some serious bullshit.
Now, there's a ton of "what about this, or what about that," but I've gone on long enough.
