WHEN IS MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT EFFECTIVE?
August 23, 2010 § Leave a comment
A judgment modifying child support upward may be effective on the date that the petition is filed, or on a later date “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1384 (Miss. 1991). In Frazier v. Burnett, 767 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss. App. 2000), the court stated that the “best practice” is to make the modification retroactive to the date of filing.
A judgment modifying child support downward or terminating it may not be retroactive because each child support payment vests when and as due, and may not be forgiven. Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss. 1990).
§ 43-19-35 (4), MCA, effective July 1, 2010, and repealed automatically July 1, 2011, includes the following curious language:
(4) “Any order for support of minor children … shall not be subject to a downward retroactive modification. An upward retroactive mofidication may be ordered back to the date of the event justifying the upward modification.” [Emphasis added]
What exactly is the date of the event that would justify the upward change is not defined, nor have there been any cases construing the statute.
The question arises from time to time whether the court may order retroactivity without a request therefor in the pleading. Chancellors in my experience are split, some taking the position that it must be pled, some saying that it need not be since it is in the discretion of the trial judge. My own position is that it is a simple Fifth Amendment due process matter. You are trying to take someone else’s money, and because you are, you are required to put that person on notice and afford the opportunity to defend. In my opinion, the opposing party needs to be put on notice of whatever relief you are seeking, including retroactive modification, and that without that notice, the court can not grant your client that relief.
Clearly the safest position is to include a prayer for retroactive relief in every petition to modify child support. Get in your computers and add that language to your petition for modification of child support.
TRIAL BY CHECKLIST: MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT
August 12, 2010 § 9 Comments
A practice tip about trial factors is here.
The trial court is required to consider the factors set out in Adams v. Adams, 467 So. 2d 211, 215 (Miss. 1985), in determining whether child support should be modified.
- Increased needs caused by advanced age and maturity of the children;
- Increase in expenses;
- Inflation factor;
- The relative financial condition and earning capacity of the parties;
- The physical and psychological health and special medical needs of the child;
- The health and special medical needs of the parents, both physical and psychological;
- The necessary living expenses of the paying party;
- The estimated amount of income taxes that the respective parties must pay on their incomes;
- The free use of residence, furnishings, and automobiles; and
- Any other factors and circumstances that bear on the support as shown by the evidence. (citing Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 176, 84 So. 2d 147, 153 (1955).
Expenses of private school are a legitimate factor to consider in modification proceedings, although the expenses are inadequate standing alone. Southerland v. Southerland, 816 So. 2d 1004, 1007 (¶13) (Miss. 2002).
Educational expenses may be properly considered with the increased needs of older children and their increased extracurricular activities in order to justify an increase in child support. Havens v. Brooks, 728 So. 2d 580, 583 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
Remember that the keystone consideration for modification is a change in expenses of the child. You must put on proof that establishes what the expenses were at the time of the judgment you are seeking to modify, as well as proof of the expenses at the time of trial. Most importantly: It is not adequate to prove only that the income of the paying parent has increased.
TRIAL BY CHECKLIST: CHILD CUSTODY FACTORS
July 19, 2010 § 32 Comments
A practice tip about trial factors is here.
The factors that the court must consider in awarding child custody are set out in Albright vs. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983).
The factors are:
- Age, health and gender of the child.
- Parent having continuity of care prior to the separation.
- Parent with best parenting skills and willingness and capacity to provide primary child care.
- Employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment.
- Physical and mental health and age of the parent.
- Emotional ties of parent to child.
- Moral fitness of the parent.
- Home, school and coomunity record of the child.
- Preference of the child at age sufficient to express a preference.
- Stability of parent’s home environment and employment of each parent.
- Relative financial situation of the parents.
- Difference in religion of the parents.
- Differences in personal values of the parents.
- Differences in lifestyle of the parents.
- Other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship.
The Albright factors are not to be applied in the manner of a scoresheet or mathematical formula. Lee v. Lee, 798 So.2d 1284, 1288 (Miss. 2001). The Chancellor may give special weight to one, two or several factors to determine the outcome. Divers v. Divers, 856 So.2d 370, 376 (Miss. App. 2003). The Chancellor has the ultimate discretion to judge the weight and credibility of evidence. Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 860 (Miss. 1994); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So.2d 1006, 1013-1014 (Miss. 2003).
In an original action for custody, the Albright factors govern the award.
In a modification of custody case, the proponent must prove 3 things, in combination, in order to prevail:
- That there has been a change in circumstances of the custodial parent material to the issue of custody since entry of the last judgment; and
- That the change in circumstances has an adverse effect on the minor child; and, if 1 and 2 are proven
- That it is in the best interest of the minor child to change custody. Determination of the child’s best interest is based on application of the Albright factors to the facts of the case.
The standard for modification is like a three-legged stool; if one leg is missing, the stool can not stand. It is a three-prong or three-part test.
There is one exception to the three-part test for modification. In the case of Riley v. Doerner, 677 So.2d 740, 744 (Miss. 1996), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to prove adverse effect where the child is in an inherently dangerous or unsuitable situation, as where the custodial parent is using drugs. Evidence of the Albright factors should still be offered in such cases. Some argue that Albright proof would not be necessary in a case where the proof shows a clearly dangerous circumstance, but it is this judge’s position that proof of the Albright factors in such a case would make the case airtight.
There have been cases following Riley that have explained and even expanded on the concept, so that now there is arguably a “totality of the circumstances” test to justify modification. Some attorneys have taken the position that the “totality” is an alternative avenue to the three-pronged test. This court is not convinced, and takes the position that Riley and its progeny apply in extreme circumstances where the proof shows that the child is showing no adverse effects despite being in an inherently dangerous situation. In my opinion, the Riley line of cases is not intended to create a new remedy where there is no inherently dangerous situation and the proof is not strong enough to satisfy the three-prong test.
The Albright factors apply only to physical custody, and the Chancellor is not required to address them in considering whether to grant joint legal custody only. Palculict v. Palculict, 22 So.3d 293 (Miss. App. 2009).
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 