Child Support

Child Support – Impact of SSI Benefits.  The Appeals Court, in a decision consistent with that of most, if not all, judicial authority from other states, held that a noncustodial parent is not entitled to a child support credit based upon a dependent child’s receipt of SSI benefits. Martin v. Martin, 70 Mass.App.Ct 547 (October 19, 2007)
 
Child Support Following Death of Father.  Where paternity is not disputed, a Probate Court judge has the authority to enter an initial award of child support for a non-marital child after the death of the obligor-parent, the Supreme Judicial Court decided.  The Probate judge, however, must consider, by means of a credit to the obligor-parent’s estate, Social Security survivor benefits, life insurance proceeds and any other benefits the child will receive.  L.M. v. R.L.R. 451 Mass. 682 (June 19, 2008)
 
Support Judgments – Delay in Bringing Claim.  The ex-wife filed a complaint for contempt against the husband regarding a child support and alimony arrearage.  The Appeals Court rejected the ex-husband’s laches defense for the child support claim (i.e. an unreasonable and prejudicial delay in bringing suit), stating that since each child support is a judgment on the date after it is due, pursuant to GL c.119A s.13(a), the defense was not available to him. Lombardi v. Lombardi, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 407 (March 12, 2007) 
 
Child Support – “Three Pony Rule.”  Where the Probate and Family Court found no disparity in the standards of living of both the custodial and noncustodial parent and where the children’s needs were “well met,” the Appeals Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of a complaint for modification to increase in child support to the custodial parent even though the custodial parent had enjoyed a substantial increase in income since the divorce.
 
The decision recites the declared public policy of the Commonwealth that “children are entitled to participate in the noncustodial parent’s higher standard of living when available resources permit.”  It also reminds practitioners of the majority U.S. rule — that a support award must be based on the needs of the children and that child support awards in excess of those needs (the “three pony rule” as it is colloquially known) can have the effect of masking a disguised alimony award and, in the case of a modification, of improperly redistributing the marital estate.  Smith v. Edelman, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 549 (April 2, 2007)
 
Child Support – No Automatic Termination at Eighteen.  When a father stopped paying child support after the youngest of his children reached his eighteenth (18th) birthday, the Appeals Court found that MGL c.208 s.28 did not provide for automatic termination of a child support obligation at age eighteen (18).  The mother, according to the Appeals Court, was not required to file a complaint for modification “to establish the father’s continued obligation for child support.”
 
In the course of the opinion, the Appeals Court also reminds the practitioner of prior case law which holds: (1) that child support obligations do not terminate on the death of the payor; (2) that a provision in a judgment permitting the custodial parent to remain in the marital home with the children is a child support provision and (3) that a court has the authority to modify a support obligation after a hearing on a contempt action. Tatar v. Schuker, 70 Mass.App.Ct. 436 (October 9, 2007)
 
Gifts from Parents as Income for Support.  A Probate Court judge, in refusing to reduce a father’s child support obligation, noted that he receives substantial cash gifts from his parents.  The Appeals Court, affirming the judgment, expressly did not reach the question of whether such gifts may be considered in determining support.  Interestingly, the Appeals Court did cite to a 1961 case from the Supreme Judicial Court which held that since a gift could be discontinued at any time, it could not be relied upon in determining a payor’s ability to pay.  Forte v. Forte, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1107 (November 28, 2008) (Unpublished)
 
Inconsistency Standard v. Material Change of Circumstances.  What standard must a Probate and Family Court use when faced with a modification of a child support order when the case is within the Child Support Guidelines? The trial judge in this case dismissed the modification complaint because, although the ex-husband’s income had increased, she found there was not a “substantial and material change in circumstances.”  Notably, the judge’s decision did not mention the “inconsistency standard” in G.L. c.208, s.28 which states that a modification is appropriate “if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from applying the Guidelines.”  Nevertheless, the Appeals Court affirmed her judgment.  The SJC, however, reversed; it held that the “inconsistency standard” rather than the “material change in circumstances” applies where modifications of child support within the Guidelines are concerned.  Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507 (March 12, 2013)