This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2010-183, In the Matter of Anthony J. Laura and Ericka P. Scott
Michael A. Delaney
Opinion Issued: December 22, 2010 Argued: November 17, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY J. LAURA AND ERICKA P. SCOTT
No. 2010-183
Manchester Family Division
to Ericka P. Scott in the amount of $57.00 per week. Shortly after the order court issued a Uniform Support Order that required Laura to pay child support The record supports the following facts. In December 2007, the trial Ericka P. Scott, pro
The Law Offices of James F. Laura, P.C.
___________________________
Manchester Family Division (Tenney DUGGAN, J. The respondent, Anthony J. Laura, appeals an order of the
order regarding child support arrearages. We affirm.
, J.) denying his motion to reconsider its
se, filed no brief.
the brief and orally), for the respondent. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, of Concord (James F. Laura on
Child Support Services. attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the New Hampshire Division of
, attorney general (Rebecca L. Woodard, assistant
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. 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 to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law.” In the “[We] will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding child support
in finding that the agreement did not modify the Uniform Support Order. property. He argues that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion which two private parties agree to amend a contract for the sale of personal set forth in the Agreement.” Laura compares his situation to a situation in it to be a legally binding agreement effectuating the intentions of the parties as agreement that they signed nor did they need to “seek approval of the Court for On appeal, Laura argues that the parties did not need to file the
support awards.” In the Matter of Carr & Edmunds 458-C, and establish a uniform system to determine the amount of child “New Hampshire’s child support guidelines are codified in RSA chapter
2
This appeal followed. employed, and ordered a further hearing on whether to modify child support. the court held the arrearage in abeyance until Laura could become fully responsibility for their children, according to the relative percentage of each week minus any credits for payments made. Due to Laura’s financial situation, both the custodial and non-custodial parents share in the support court directed DCSS to calculate Laura’s arrearages based upon $57.00 per uniformity in determining the amount of child support, but also to ensure that private agreement is agreed to in writing and signed by both parties.” The (quotation omitted). “The purpose of RSA chapter 458-C is not only to ensure the parties does not modify a final Uniform Support Order even when the, 156 N.H. 498, 501 (2007) After a hearing, the trial court ruled that “the private agreement between
Matter of Scott & Pierce, 160 N.H. 354, 358 (2010) (quotation omitted).
State of New Hampshire.” [Scott] and that Agreement is binding and enforceable under the Laws of the into the . . . Agreement modifying the amount of child support payable to requested a hearing, arguing that “[t]he parties freely and voluntarily entered request to assign the arrearages to DCSS. Laura moved to reconsider and him to make all future payments to DCSS. The trial court then granted DCSS’s upon the Uniform Support Order amount of $57.00 per week, and instructed collecting her support. DCSS sent notice to Laura of arrearages owed based from the New Hampshire Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in to make payments for several months. As a result, Scott asked for assistance agreement for a short period after the agreement was signed. Laura then failed agreement was signed and continued making reduced payments under the new never filed with the court. Laura had made all support payments up until the drafted in the form of a legal motion, signed and dated by Laura and Scott, but reduce child support payments to $50.00 per month. The agreement was took effect, Laura lost his job and entered into an agreement with Scott to determination as to whether application of the guidelines would be Here, neither party submitted the agreement to the trial court for a
supporting such finding.” RSA 458-C:4, IV. of the guidelines would be inappropriate or unjust and state the facts “enter a written finding or a specific finding on the record that the application agreement not made in accordance with the guidelines, the court must then “inappropriate or unjust.” RSA 458-C:4, IV, :5. In order to certify an a special circumstance exists which would make application of the guidelines from the guidelines, Laura must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the child support guidelines. RSA 458-C:4, IV. In order to justify a departure statute explicitly requires judicial approval of any agreement that departs from sufficient to warrant the modification of the child support agreement, the guidelines. While Laura argues that his change in financial situation was agreement between themselves and not in accordance with the child support In this case, the parties made arrangements for child support in an
RSA 458-C:4, IV (Supp. 2009).
finding.
be inappropriate or unjust and state the facts supporting such finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would certifying the agreement shall enter a written finding or a specific inappropriate or unjust in such particular case, . . . and in
determine whether application of the guidelines would be
guidelines provided under this chapter, the presiding officer shall
3
agreement between the parties, and not made according to
[w]hen arrangements for child support are delineated in an
N.H. at 501. The legislature has further determined that including orders modifying an existing support order.” Carr & Edmunds, 156 “These guidelines, however, must be applied in all child support cases, (2006) (quotation omitted); RSA 458-C:4, II; RSA 458-C:5, I, II (Supp. 2009). “special circumstances.” In the Matter of Baker & Winkler, 154 N.H. 186, 187 application of the guidelines would be “unjust or inappropriate” because of the guidelines when a party shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2009). The presumption may be overcome and the trial court may deviate from Carr & Edmunds, 156 N.H. at 501 (quotation omitted); RSA 458-C:4, II (Supp. award calculated under the guidelines is the correct amount of child support.” 458-C:3 (Supp. 2009). “There is a rebuttable presumption that a child support (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted); see RSA 458-C:2 (Supp. 2009); RSA parent’s total child support obligation.” Carr & Edmunds, 156 N.H. at 501 the legislature provided guidelines from which the trial court determines a (2004). “To this end, through a complex scheme of definitions and formulae, parent’s income.” In the Matter of Barrett & Coyne, 150 N.H. 520, 523-24 Affirmed
DALIANIS, C.J.
, and HICKS and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.
effect on the arrearages due under the support order. its discretion by ruling that the private agreement between the parties had no Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court unsustainably exercised 4
safeguarding the best interests of children.” Lownds v. Lownds undue pressure on the other. Cf court is vested with the ultimate responsibility for determining and prevent collusion between the parties and situations in which one party puts when deciding whether or not to depart from the support guidelines. “The Finally, judicial approval of all child support agreements is necessary to. circumstances raised by the parties “in light of the best interests of the child” Additionally, RSA 458-C:5 requires the trial court to consider any special
would pay nothing and flee the state). by the support order, and if the plaintiff did not agree to the modification he mother that he could only pay $300 per month instead of $1,500 as required
. Lownds, 551 A.2d at 777-78 (father informed
abrogated by agreement of the parties.” Lownds, 551 A.2d at 779. interests of the children, and it is a responsibility that cannot be delegated or of the court to enter such [support orders] as it believes to be in the best deprived of the amount of support to which they are entitled.”). “It is the duty 156 N.H. at 503 (“Regardless of the parents’ actions, the children should not be their children to support.” Culhane, 119 N.H. at 394; cf. Carr & Edmunds, 779 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1988). “[P]arents may not bargain away the rights of
, 551 A.2d 775,
through private agreement. See standing order from the trial court. Parties may not modify orders of the court support agreements. As an initial matter, the child support award is a considerations weigh in favor of requiring judicial approval for private child Aside from being contrary to the child support statutes, numerous policy (“orders for child support are modifiable by a court”). only be modified by the court.”); Culhane v. Culhane, 119 N.H. 389, 394 (1979) Cavanaugh, 468 A.2d 1242, 1244 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984) (“[A] support order can court approval before it may be modified.” (quotation omitted)); Brock v. provision has been approved and therefore activated by court order requires (7th Cir. 2010) (“[U]nlike a private contract, an agreement whose every
In re Resource Tech. Corp., 624 F.3d 376, 387
See RSA 458-C:4, II. guidelines provided under the statute is the correct amount of child support. that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the inappropriate or unjust. As a result, Laura has not overcome the presumption