This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2009-275, In the Matter of Audrey Zikmanis and Mark Peabody
parties’ abilities to pay. We vacate and remand. obtaining current financial affidavits or making requisite findings as to the
prospectively when no request for modification was pending, and without
her conduct; and (2) modifying the support obligation retroactively and
provided: “The health insurance available to the obligor is limited to recommendation of the Master (Peabody (husband), to pay $100 per month in child support. It further Support Order issued at the time of the divorce required the respondent, Mark divorced in 1998; two children were born during the marriage. The Uniform The record before us evidences the following facts. The parties were
the trial court erred in: (1) modifying a valid support order as a sanction for (Abramson, J.) modifying the parties’ child support obligation. She argues that
Green, M.) approved by the Superior Court
DUGGAN, J.
The petitioner, Audrey Zikmanis (wife), appeals a
Mark Peabody, pro se, filed no brief. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Parent and Jeanine M. Kilgallen on the brief), for the petitioner. McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A., of Manchester (Jennifer L.
Opinion Issued: April 8, 2010 Submitted: February 22, 2010
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. IN THE MATTER OF AUDREY ZIKMANIS AND MARK PEABODY
No. 2009-275 editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hillsborough-northern judicial district Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as those consequences.”
[the wife] has to pay all co-pays or uninsured expenses of $20 or less is one of indicate that there may be certain financial consequences, and the fact that time that would be counterproductive to the child. The Court can, however,
prior to the date that notice of the petition for modification has been given to
children constituted a modification of the 2001 support order. interest, cannot punish the child by switching custody or mandating parenting obligations of the parties concerning uninsured medical expenses of the uninsured medical expenses of the children. Accordingly, any change in the 2
provides that modification of a child support obligation shall not be effective
medical expenses.
contemptible,” and further stated: “The Court, in looking at the child’s best husband and the younger child] have been less than helpful, and in fact, Order” which provided that the parties were each to pay one half of the court found that the wife’s actions “relative to the relationship between [the
parties’ motions and petitions for contempt. RSA 458-C:7, II (2004) specifically addressed expenses dating back to 2007, which predated the filing of the The record before us indicates that the trial court’s modification
children and enforcing the parties’ liability for the children’s accrued uninsured asked to consider modifying the parties’ respective parenting time with the decree. The limited record before us indicates that the trial court was also
indicates that in 2001, the court issued a document entitled “Uniform Support of the children’s uninsured medical expenses incurred in 2007 and 2008. The contends, a modification of a preexisting support order. The record before us the point it became available. We turn first to whether the order of the trial court was, as the wife
each filed petitions and motions that alleged violations of the parties’ divorce
The trial court then considered the wife’s request to be reimbursed for one-half Massachusetts but noted that the husband had agreed to provide coverage at a court order, the husband’s request that she be found in contempt was moot. After a hearing, the trial court found that, although the wife had violated
children. evenly divide liability for the uninsured medical and dental expenses of the The matter came before the trial court again in 2008 after the parties
further found that health insurance was then only available for the husband in would each be liable for 50% of the children’s uninsured medical expenses; it designated an enforcement order. The order again provided that the parties In 2001, the trial court entered another Uniform Support Order, which it
required to provide such coverage.” The decree also ordered the parties to Massachusetts. At the point that coverage is available in NH, he shall be 3
support is to provide economic support for the
conduct. We agree. We have previously observed that the “purpose of child
husband’s child support obligation, the children were made chargeable for her conduct. The wife argues that, because the sanction imposed modified the of the parties’ child support obligations was ordered solely because of the wife’s
amount of support to which they are entitled.”
BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, HICKS and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.
Vacated and remanded.
modification was filed by either party. Rather, it appears that the modification proceedings consistent with this opinion. sanction for the wife’s conduct. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further the trial court to reduce the child support obligations of the husband as a filing the motion for modification. Id. It was therefore error for “Regardless of the parents’ actions, the children should not be deprived of the parent.” In the Matter of Carr & Edmunds, 156 N.H. 498, 50 3 (2007).
children, not the obligee
Moreover, we find no evidence in the record before us that any motion for
modification of a support order shall alter arrearages due prior to the date of respondent. RSA 461-A:14, VIII (Supp. 2009) further provides that no