CASE LAW UPDATES
(Pertinent child support related issues on appeal are highlighted in bold)
U.S. Supreme Court Update
In October 2008, the United States Supreme Court has denied review to the following decisions:
Row v. Row, 650 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
Father appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the North Carolina Supreme Court also denied him discretionary review of an appellate decision that Federal law requiring states to review their child support guidelines once every four years did not preempt North Carolina guidelines, which Father argued fell short of the Federal standard of analyzing appropriate data as to true costs of raising children. The Court also found that North Carolina’s guidelines did not violate equal protection, or due process rights of Father.
Roberts v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services, (ruling found under Roberts v. Nicholas, 2007 WL 5145353 (D.Md. 2007)).
Father appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court of Maryland’s decision to dismiss Father’s 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 civil rights complaint to enjoin the State of Maine from enforcing a Maine child support obligation against Father, a Maryland resident, by utilizing tax offset programs, interstate wage withholding, and credit reporting. Maine still had continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the child support matter, and other states were required to give the child support order full faith and credit.
Stauber v. McGrath, 2007 WL 4180010 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2007).
Mother appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the Ohio Supreme Court also denied her discretionary review of an appellate decision that upheld an Ohio judgment allowing Father to revoke a voluntary acknowledgement of parentage after Mother repeatedly refused to honor a genetic testing order issued by the Ohio court. Mother later moved to California, whose Court made a finding that Ohio lacked jurisdiction over the children and issued its own parentage and child support order against Father. Mother tried to unsuccessfully enforce the California order in Ohio, but Ohio ruled Father’s original rescission of the voluntary acknowledgement of parentage was upheld by the doctrine of res judicata, and would not enforce the terms of the later order issued by California. (Interestingly enough, California issued its parentage order after Mother finally submitted to genetic testing in that state, and Father was proven to be the biological father by a 99.99%+ probability).
National Case Law Updates
In Re: A.N.F., 2008 WL 4334712 (Tenn. Ct. App., 9/24/08)
The parties first met when mother was pregnant by another relationship. The child was born in 1999. Despite the fact that he knew the child was not biologically his, after the parties married in 2000, the husband signed a voluntary acknowledgement of parentage for his wife’s child, and had his name added as the child’s father on the birth certificate, and had the child’s last name legally changed to match his.
The parties filed for divorce in 2004, and initiated a lengthy battle over parenting plan issues. In 2005, mother paid for private genetic testing that established by a 99.99+% probability that her former boyfriend was the child’s biological father. In 2006, the mother and her former boyfriend filed a motion to establish parentage of the child based upon the genetic test results. The husband responded by filing a counter-motion to establish parentage asserting that he was the child’s legal father by virtue of the fact that he had signed an unrescinded voluntary acknowledgement of parentage, and he also moved to terminate the former boyfriend’s potential parental rights over the child, asserting abandonment.
The trial court found after testimony and hearing that the voluntary acknowledgement of parentage signed by the husband had never been rescinded within the 5 years allowed by law after its execution, despite the fact that all parties were aware of the child’s biological beginnings, and that it stands as res judicata, barring any subsequent paternity claims by anyone else. The Court also found that the former boyfriend had abandoned his child, and found that he had no legal standing to assert any parental rights. The husband was granted full parentage and parental rights toward the child. Mother and her former boyfriend appealed.
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, asserting that a voluntary acknowledgement of parentage establishes a legal relationship between father and child, and that it is treated as a conclusive finding of parentage. A claim to challenge this determination under Tennessee law may be brought within 5 years, but the parties failed to meet this deadline. The Court was willing to extend the 5 year statute of limitations prohibition if fraud was alleged and proven, but in the current case, there was no allegation of fraud, as both former boyfriend and the husband were always aware of the fact that husband was not the biological father, and that it was probable that the former boyfriend was indeed the biological father of the child. The Court also noted that this ruling would be in the child’s best interests, because the parent-child bond had been developed between the husband and child for 6+ years. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed.
In Re: S.R.S., 756 N.W. 2d 123 (2008) (Minn. App. 9/30/08)
A child was born to unmarried parties in the State of Colorado. Colorado issued a parental rights and a child support order requiring Dad to pay Mom. The Colorado court later approved for mom and child to relocate to the State of Minnesota. When father later tried to contest the move in a Colorado court, the court found that it was an inconvenient forum and “transferred jurisdiction” of the matter to Minnesota. Father asked for clarification of the Court’s ruling, stating that under UIFSA, Colorado should retain jurisdiction of all child support matters, because he remained a Colorado resident. The Colorado court responded, without reference to UIFSA, that jurisdiction of all matters, including child support, was hereby transferred to Minnesota. Mother and Minnesota child support responded by filing to enforce and modify the Colorado child support order in Minnesota.
After receiving the Colorado Court’s clarification of what issues were intended to be transferred to Minnesota, a Minnesota magistrate granted mother’s request to modify the order, and Dad appealed to a Minnesota District Court, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction under UIFSA. The Minnesota District Court agreed with Dad and reversed the Magistrate’s order. Mother and Minnesota child support agency appealed, asserting that the Court was not giving the Colorado clarification order full faith and credit.
The Minnesota Appellate Court affirmed, stating that under UIFSA, as long as Father remained a Colorado resident, and as long as all parties did not file a written agreement that Minnesota may assume jurisdiction of the matter, then only the State of Colorado may modify the terms of its child support order, because it is the only state with continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify. Furthermore, in this case, the Colorado order was never registered in Minnesota. The Court noted that interstate custody and child support matters operate under different standards (UCCJEA vs. UIFSA), and that they have previously held under UIFSA proceedings that only an out of state petitioner may request registration of a foreign support order for purposes of modification in the State of Minnesota.
The higher court also rejected Mother’s claim that it was not giving the Colorado clarification order transferring jurisdiction to Minnesota full faith and credit, noting that it was a summary order that failed to explain or analyze the basis for Minnesota assuming subject matter jurisdiction over the child support case, and that it made no reference or response to Father’s claims that UIFSA barred the transfer of subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Minnesota refuses to accept jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of UIFSA that are applicable in both states. The District Court decision is affirmed.
Wallace v. Wallace, 2008 WL 4402435 (Mo. Ct. App. 9/30/08)
Father was under a child support obligation to pay Mother $577 per month in child support. Mother filed for modification to increase child support because Father had substantial rental income. Since the order had issued, Father qualified for Social Security Disability benefits, and Daughter had been receiving $726 per month from Social Security as a derivative benefit because of Father’s disability. The trial court did substantially increase Father’s child support obligation, but also ruled that “any monthly benefits received by Wife from Husband’s Social Security for Daughter shall satisfy, in whole or in part, Husband’s obligation to pay child support.” Mother appealed this issue, stating that this ruling was “out of harmony with the legislative intent of allowing a credit for Social Security disability benefits to offset a parent’s obligation to pay child support, because the trial court allows the credit to offset Husband’s child support obligation that stems from Husband’s rental income, and not from Husband’s lost income due to his disability.”
Issue: Whether a recipient of disability benefits who has independent sources of income is entitled to the same credit for his child support obligation as another recipient of disability benefits who has no other sources of income?
The Missouri Appellate Court affirmed the ruling, noting that Father’s Social Security Disability benefits were taken into account as part of his total income when calculating his higher child support award to Mother, so it would be inequitable to not also consider his payment of his obligation via the derivative benefits payable to Daughter. The Court found that Father had already contributed these payments into the Social Security system before he became disabled, and that he should be given credit for them against his obligation.
Colbert v. State, 264 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. App. 2008)
Father was under a $50 per month repayment wage withholding obligation toward a child support arrears owed to the State of Missouri in excess of $12,000. Father filed for contempt against the Missouri child support agency after they intercepted his federal and state income tax refunds in the combined amount of $5,292, and applied it toward his child support arrears. The Circuit Court denied Father’s motion for contempt, but stating “let’s call it quits” as the $50 monthly repayment order would never get this debt cleared up in a timely fashion, it declared an equitable resolution would be to rule that the arrears judgment owed to the State was satisfied in full, and that no further arrears were owed. The State appealed.
The Western District Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court decision. The Higher Court ruled that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief beyond what was requested in the initial pleading. Father never alleged that he had paid his debt in full, or that the arrears owed were incorrect; he only objected to the form of payment made by offset of his tax refunds. The State had not expressly or impliedly consented to trial on the satisfaction of debt issue. The Circuit Court exceeded its authority in finding that the child arrears to the State had been paid in full and the judgment is reversed.
Ellison v. Lopez, 2008 WL 4572331 (Pa. Super. 10/15/08)
The Child was born in June 2003. Although Father had some misgivings about biological paternity because of Mother’s relationship with another man at the time of conception that they both knew about, Mother told him he was the Father, and he is listed on the birth certificate, and stipulated to parentage and child support in November 2004. By all accounts, he was an active father to the child. He began to notice when the child was 2 years old that she had no physical resemblance to him. In April 2007, when the child was nearly 4 years old, he obtained a genetic test and found out that he was not the biological father. He filed to set aside the November 2004 parentage order based upon the genetic testing results, but the trial court denied his claim, asserting that at this late date he was estopped from challenging paternity. Father appealed.
The Higher Court affirmed the ruling, stating that under Pennsylvania law, a father is estopped from challenging paternity when he has held himself out as the child’s father or provided support. However, the doctrine of paternity by estoppel will not be applied where fraud has been established, even if a father-child relationship has been established. Father alleged fraud because Mother had told him he was the father of the child. But the Court did not find that this misrepresentation rose to the level of fraud, especially because both parents were aware that Mother had sexual relations with another man around the time of the child’s conception. Because Father did not raise this issue until the child was almost four years old, and continued to hold himself out as her father and continue the active establishment of a parent-child relationship, he is estopped from challenging paternity at this late date. The lower court’s ruling is affirmed.
Koerner v. Koerner, 2008 WL 4601378 (Ky. Ct. App., 10/17/2008)
The parties were all residents of the State of Georgia at the time of their divorce. The Georgia Court ordered Father to pay Mother child support for their two children. After the order issued, Mother and children moved to the State of Kentucky. Father then moved to register his Georgia order in the State of Kentucky, and requested modification of custody. After the Kentucky court granted a change for at least the summer, allowing one of the children to temporarily move back with Father, Father then moved to modify the child support provision which assumed that both children lived primarily with Mother. Incidentally, the child moved back into Mother’s household after the summer, so the Kentucky Court directed parties to submit memoranda concerning Father’s entitlement to a child support credit during the summer when one of the children resided with him. Over Mother’s objection, the Kentucky Court granted Father some retroactive relief on his Georgia child support obligation for the summer months when one child resided with him. She appealed the trials court’s ruling.