BLANK

Category: Child Support Enforcement

Why Hiding or Misrepresenting Your Income in a Divorce and/or Child Support Court Case Won’t Work (and why people still try) By Braxton Mounteer

When those who realize they may be ordered to pay child and/or spousal support (alimony) confront the matter, many try to lie about and to misrepresent their income in the hope they can avoid paying, or at least pay as little as possible. Few involved in the support calculation effort–from the would-be support obligee (“obligee” means the one who receives support payments) to the court–believes anyone would tell the truth about his/her income, and this is doubly true for support obligors (“obligor” means the one who pays) who are self-employed.

Those who hope to receive child support are also tempted to lie about their income as well because the less income they can get the court to believe they have, the more they hope to be paid.

While it is tempting to lie about your income in the hope of either receiving more than you should or paying less than you should, that’s wrong (and it most likely would not work anyway).

Many will earn more than they claim to earn by getting paid under the table or working a side hustle.

But how do you enjoy the hard-earned cash that you have cleaned your name from (i.e., the Walter White problem)? If you spend the money you haven’t reported, you risk unraveling the lie. For example, if your personal expenses are $10,000 per month, but you report an income of only $6,000 per month and don’t show yourself incurring $4,000 worth of debt every month, then clearly you have income of some kind that enables you to cover your $10,000 of monthly living expenses.

Avoiding your legal obligations often proves to be more trouble than it’s worth. It is both easier and easier on your conscience just to tell the truth. Most people aren’t good enough liars to keep everyone fooled forever. Don’t give your children reason to hate you for being greedy.

Now, we get it: some of you would feel a lot better about paying child support if you knew the parent receiving the support money was actually spending it for the child’s support and not for that parent’s own selfish benefit. But that’s a subject for another blog.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

House Bill 129 Child Support Requirements

Today’s blog post treats another proposed law that is up for consideration during the 2024 Utah legislative session: House Bill 129 (HB0129 (utah.gov)), entitled “Child Support Requirements”.

This bill would, if passed into law, provide that a parent or other obligated individual is not responsible to pay child support for a child who is in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS).

The law that is currently in place provides for the possibility of a parent having to pay child support to DCFS or to reimburse DCFS for funds is has expended on the support of a child while the child is in DCFS custody. H.B. 129 would eliminate that possibility.

I wonder why the government would want to eliminate a way of getting its hands on our money, and in fairness, I don’t see anything wrong with a parent having to reimburse the state for funds DCFS expends on behalf of a child in the protective custody, temporary custody, or custody of the division, from the child’s parent or guardian. Do you?

The proposed legislation is cited below:

27     Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:

28          Section 1. Section 78A-6-356 is amended to read:

29          78A-6-356. Child support obligation when custody of a child is vested in an

30     individual or institution.

*****

114          (12) [(a)] The child’s parent or another obligated individual is not responsible for child
115     support for the period of time that the child is removed from the child’s home by the Division
116     of Child and Family Services [if:].
117          [(i) the juvenile court finds that there were insufficient grounds for the removal of the
118     child; and]
119          [(ii) the child is returned to the home of the child’s parent or guardian based on the
120     finding described in Subsection (12)(a)(i).]

121          [(b) If the juvenile court finds insufficient grounds for the removal of the child under
122     Subsection (12)(a), but that the child is to remain in state custody, the juvenile court shall order
123     that the child’s parent or another obligated individual is responsible for child support beginning
124     on the day on which it became improper to return the child to the home of the child’s parent or
125     guardian.]

*****

138          80-2-301. Division responsibilities.
139          (1) The division is the child, youth, and family services authority of the state.
140          (2) The division shall:

*****

202          [(l) seek reimbursement of funds the division expends on behalf of a child in the
203     protective custody, temporary custody, or custody of the division, from the child’s parent or
204     guardian in accordance with an order for child support under Section 78A-6-356;]

*****

282          80-2-303. Division enforcement authority — Attorney general responsibilities.

*****

306          (3) (a) The attorney general’s office shall represent the division in an action[:]


307          [(a)] involving a minor who has not been adjudicated as abused or neglected, but who
308     is placed in the custody of the division by the juvenile court primarily on the basis of
309     delinquent behavior or a status offense[; or].
310          [(b) for reimbursement of funds from a parent or guardian under Subsection
311     80-2-301(2)(l).]

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

H.B. 20 “Parental Rights Amendments”

Today’s blog post treats House Bill 20, one of several proposed family law-related pieces of legislation for the 2024 Utah legislative session.

H.B. 20 is entitled “Parental Rights Amendments”

According the bill’s own “General Description,” this bill:

  • addresses the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights.
  • clarifies the requirements and procedure for an individual to consent to the termination of parental rights or voluntarily relinquish parental rights.

Utah Code Sections Affected (if passed): It would amend Utah Code § 80-4-307

Here is the proposed text:

24          80-4-307. Voluntary relinquishment — Irrevocable.
25          (1) The individual consenting to termination of parental rights or voluntarily

26     relinquishing parental rights shall sign [or confirm] the consent or relinquishment, or confirm a
27     consent or relinquishment previously signed by the individual, under oath before:
28          (a) a judge of any court that has jurisdiction over proceedings for termination of
29     parental rights in this state or any other state, or a public officer appointed by that court for the
30     purpose of taking consents or relinquishments; or
31          (b) except as provided in Subsection (2), any person authorized to take consents or
32     relinquishments under Subsections 78B-6-124(1) and (2).
33          (2) Only the juvenile court is authorized to take consents or relinquishments from a
34     parent who has any child who is in the custody of a state agency or who has a child who is
35     otherwise under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
36          (3) (a) The court, appointed officer, or other authorized person shall certify to the best
37     of that person’s information and belief that the individual executing the consent or
38     relinquishment, or confirming a consent or relinquishment previously signed by the individual,
39     has read and understands the consent or relinquishment and has signed the consent or
40     relinquishment freely and voluntarily.
41          (b) A consent or relinquishment is not effective until the consent or relinquishment is
42     certified pursuant to Subsection (3)(a).
43          (4) [A voluntary relinquishment or consent for termination of parental rights is
44     effective when the voluntary relinquishment or consent is signed and may not be revoked.A
45     consent or relinquishment that has been certified pursuant to Subsection (3)(a) is effective
46     against the consenting or relinquishing individual and may not be revoked.
47          (5) (a) The requirements and processes described in Section 80-4-104, Sections
48     80-4-301 through 80-4-304, and Part 2, Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, do not
49     apply to a voluntary relinquishment or consent for termination of parental rights.
50          (b) When determining voluntary relinquishment or consent for termination of parental
51     rights, the juvenile court need only find that the relinquishment or termination is in the child’s
52     best interest.
53          (6) (a) There is a presumption that voluntary relinquishment or consent for termination
54     of parental rights is not in the child’s best interest where it appears to the juvenile court that the
55     primary purpose for relinquishment or consent for termination is to avoid a financial support
56     obligation.

57          (b) The presumption described in Subsection (6)(a) may be rebutted if the juvenile
58     court finds the relinquishment or consent to termination of parental rights will facilitate the
59     establishment of stability and permanency for the child.
60          (7) Upon granting a voluntary relinquishment the juvenile court may make orders
61     relating to the child’s care and welfare that the juvenile court considers to be in the child’s best
62     interest.

The main reason for H.B. 20 is the questions that the recent Utah Court of Appeals case of State in Interest of A.G. (2022 UT App 126) raised about it. In that case,

4

Infants

Statute outlining steps for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights requires relinquishing parent to sign a document effectuating the relinquishment and if no such document is signed by the parent, the relinquishment is incomplete and ineffective. Utah Code Ann. § 80-4-307.

The Utah Court of Appeals described the issue this way:

¶1 This case requires us to determine whether, under the language of the governing statute [§ 80-4-307], parents who intend to relinquish their parental rights in connection with a child welfare proceeding may effectuate that relinquishment under oath orally in court, without ever signing anything, or whether they must at some point sign a document effectuating that relinquishment.

¶2 In this case, S.A. (Mother)—while under oath—told the juvenile court that she wanted to relinquish her parental rights to A.G., J.K., and D.K. (collectively, the Children), and that she was doing so knowingly and voluntarily. Relying on those sworn representations, the court accepted Mother’s relinquishment, and later entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. But Mother did not sign any document indicating that she was relinquishing her rights, and on that basis she challenged her relinquishment as incomplete and invalid. The juvenile court rejected that challenge, interpreting the governing statute as allowing relinquishment, under certain circumstances, without a signed document from the parent.

¶3 Mother now appeals that determination, asserting that the juvenile court’s interpretation of the governing statute was incorrect. We agree with Mother that the statute requires the relinquishing parent to—at some point—sign a document effectuating the relinquishment. Accordingly, we reverse the termination order and remand this case for further proceedings.

In describing the requirements of § 80-4-307, the court stated:

[T]to summarize, all relinquishments regarding children “in the custody of a state agency” or “under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court” must involve a juvenile court judge. See id. § 80-4-307(2). A parent who is relinquishing rights to any such children must “sign or confirm the consent or relinquishment under oath before” that judge. Id. § 80-4-307(1). The judge, in turn, must “certify to the best of [his or her] information and belief” that the parent who is “executing the consent or relinquishment” understands it and has “signed [it] freely and voluntarily.” Id. § 80-4-307(3). And the relinquishment “is effective when the voluntary relinquishment or consent is signed.” Id. § 80-4-307(4).

In its concluding paragraph, the Utah Court of Appeals stated:

CONCLUSION

¶25 The statute at issue here requires a person relinquishing parental rights to—at some point—sign a document effectuating the relinquishment. Even though Mother appeared in court and, under oath, indicated her willingness to relinquish her parental rights, she never signed a document to that effect. Accordingly, her relinquishment did not become effective, and the juvenile court erred by declining to set aside that nascent relinquishment and by proceeding to terminate her parental rights. We therefore reverse the juvenile court’s termination order and remand the case for further proceedings, which may include a rescheduled termination trial.

H.B. 20 was proposed to prevent future confusion by parents, attorneys, and judges in the future when confronting questions of whether a parent does in fact voluntarily relinquishment of parental rights.

Is H.B.20 a good idea, then? Yes, yes it is.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Family Law Legislation for the 2024 Utah State Legislative Session

Here is a list of the current proposed family law legislation for the 2024 Utah State Legislative session, along with a (very) brief description of the proposed legislation. If you want to read the complete bill, I have provided the links each of them.

Next month, I will provide my comments and those of others who have expressed their opinions on whether and why these bills should or should not be passed into law.

House Bills

House Bill 20

Title:  Parental Rights Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0020.pdf

Purpose: This bill: clarifies the requirements and procedure for an individual to consent to the termination of parental rights or voluntarily relinquish parental rights.

House Bill 81

Title: Domestic Violence Modifications

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0081.pdf

Purpose: This bill adds the crime of propelling a bodily substance or material to the list of crimes that qualify as a domestic violence offense in certain circumstances; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill 110

Title:  Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/static/HB0110.html

Purpose: This bill changes references from the Department of Corrections to the Department of Public Safety; clarifies the purpose of the Department of Public Safety keeping certain information for individuals on the Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry; and clarifies the requirements the Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Department of Corrections must check for when an individual petitions to be removed from the registry.

House Bill  129

Title:  Child Support Requirements

Purpose: This bill provides that a parent or other obligated individual is not responsible for child support for a child who is in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill  131

Title:  Clergy Child Abuse Reporting Requirements

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0131.pdf

Purpose:  This bill clarifies that a member of the clergy may report suspected child abuse or neglect in certain circumstances; and makes technical corrections.

House Bill  134

Title:  Marriage Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0134.pdf

Purpose: This bill addresses the validation and recognition of a marriage regardless of the race, ethnicity, or national original of the parties to the marriage; repeals a provision on interracial marriage; and makes technical and conforming changes

House Bill  140

Title:  Parental Notification Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0140.pdf

Purpose: This bill amends the advisory guidelines for a custody and parent-time arrangement to allow for parental notification when a parent is residing with an individual, or providing the individual access to the parent’s child, and the individual has been convicted of certain crimes; amends the advisory guidelines for a custody and parent-time arrangement in regard to notification of a parent in the event of a medical emergency; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill  157

Title:  Child Custody Factors Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0157.pdf

Purpose: This bill provides that a parent’s approval or disapproval, in itself, of a child’s gender identity, is not a factor to be considered: in a Division of Child and Family Services determination regarding removal of a child from parental custody; and when determining child custody as part of a divorce or other family law proceeding.

House Bill  194

Title:  Child Placement Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0194.pdf

Purpose: This bill amends the definition of “relative” for purposes of child placement, including adoption; and addresses when a court holds a hearing concerning a contested adoption.

House Bill  198

Title:  Child Welfare Placement Review Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0198.pdf

Purpose: This bill addresses the analysis a juvenile court undertakes when evaluating whether to terminate parental rights; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill  199

Title: Child Welfare Revisions

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0199.pdf

Purpose: This bill amends definitions related to child welfare in the Utah Juvenile Code

House Bill  200

Title:  Order for Life Sustaining Treatment

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0200.pdf

Purpose: This bill modifies professional conduct standards for physicians, advance practice registered nurses, and physician assistants to include obtaining a parent or guardian signature when completing an order for life sustaining treatment for a minor; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill  219

Title:  Divorce Imputed Income Requirements

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0219.pdf

Purpose: This bill provides standards for imputing income to a spouse who will be receiving alimony payments from another spouse; provides potential limitations on imputation of income for alimony purposes in some circumstances where the recipient spouse has no recent full-time work history or has been diagnosed with a disability; excludes situations where the recipient spouse has been determined to be at fault; and makes technical and conforming changes.

House Bill  220

Title:  Divorce Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0220.pdf

Purpose: This bill adds factors to be considered when determining the standard of living that existed during a marriage; requires a specific look-back period for information provided to demonstrate the financial conditions and needs of a spouse seeking to be awarded alimony; places restrictions on when a court can reduce a showing of need related to alimony; provides alternative means for demonstrating income and the standard of living during a marriage; and  modifies provisions related to when a court may elect to equalize income between parties by means of an alimony award.

House Bill  234

Title:  Birth Certificate Modifications

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0234.pdf

Purpose: This bill requires an individual when petitioning the court for a name or sex designation change on the birth certificate to indicate on the petition whether the individual is registered with the Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry; and authorizes the court to obtain additional information from an individual that is registered with the Sex and Kidnap Offender Registry to determine whether to grant a name or sex designation change petition.

House Bill  272

Title:  Child Custody Proceedings Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0272.pdf

Purpose: This bill defines terms; in certain proceedings involving child custody: specifies requirements for the admission of expert evidence; and  requires a court to consider evidence relating to domestic violence or abuse by a parent; imposes certain requirements and limitations regarding orders to improve the relationship between a parent and a child; requires the state court administrator to make recommendations regarding the education and training of court personnel involving child custody and related proceedings;  requires that certain protective order proceedings comply with specific standards; and makes technical and conforming changes.

SENATE BILLS

Senate Bill 70

Title:  Judiciary Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/sbillint/SB0070.pdf

Purpose: This bill increases the number of district court judges in the Third Judicial District, Fourth Judicial District, and Fifth Judicial District; increases the number of juvenile court judges in the Third Judicial District and the 15 Fourth Judicial District; and makes technical and conforming changes.

Senate Bill 88

Title:  Juvenile Justice Amendments

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/sbillint/SB0088.pdf

Purpose: This bill defines terms; clarifies requirements regarding the collection of a DNA specimen from a minor adjudicated by the juvenile court; provides that a minor may not be placed in a correctional facility as an alternative to detention; provides a time period in which an agency is required to send an affidavit to an individual who is the subject of an expungement order by the juvenile court; and makes technical and conforming changes.

Senate Bill 95

Title:  Domestic Relations Recodification

https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/sbillint/SB0095.pdf

Purpose: This bill recodifies Title 30, Husband and Wife, to Title 81, Utah Domestic Relations Code; recodifies Title 78B, Chapter 12, Utah Child Support Act, to Title 81, Chapter 6, Child Support; defines terms; clarifies provisions related to a claim of a creditor when the joint debtors divorce or are living separately under an order of separate maintenance; clarifies the validation of a marriage to an individual subject to chronic epileptic fits who had not been sterilized; clarifies the validation of an interracial marriage; clarifies the validation of a marriage to an individual with acquired immune deficiency syndrome or other sexually transmitted disease; clarifies provisions regarding the rights and obligations during a marriage; clarifies provisions regarding the dissolution of a marriage, including: an order for separate maintenance; an annulment; and a divorce; clarifies provisions regarding child support, including: the requirements for a child support order; the general requirements for calculating child support; and the requirements for calculating child support for a sole physical custody case, a joint physical custody case, and a split physical custody case; clarifies provisions regarding custody, parent-time, and visitation; repeals statutes related to domestic relations, including a statute on the appointment of counsel for a child; and makes technical and conforming changes.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What happens in court if I file for divorce but my husband has an active case on me for child support? Will I get the child?

Whether you “get the child” (meaning whether you will be awarded physical custody of the child) has little to no relevance to the fact that your spouse is seeking child support from you.

My guess is, based upon the way you phrased your question, that 1) you and your husband are separated and were separated before you filed, or before you have contemplated filing, for divorce; 2) the children have been, on an informal basis (i.e., no court order) your spouse has been exercising sole or primary custody of the children for a while since the separation occurred; and 3) your spouse has applied for an administrative order or court order for child support without having filed for a divorce. Under such circumstances, what would weaken your case for awarding custody to you would be the fact that the children have been in the sole or primary custody of your spouse during separation (and thus, the argument would go, that is the way it should stay, if and when a court issues a decree of divorce), not that he/she has sought child support from you.

If the children have been in the sole or primary custody of your spouse since separation and this is not due to your spouse having concealed the children from you, having absconded with the children, or having otherwise not obtained and exercised this de facto sole/primary custody wrongfully, then it’s not the fact that your spouse is seeking child support from you that hurts your case for custody. What hurts your case for custody being awarded to you is the fact that your spouse stepped up to take care of the kids and you did not.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Eric Johnson’s answer to What happens in court if I file for divorce but my husband has an active case on me for child support? Will I get the child? – Quora

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Gaming Child Support as the Child Support Recipient

Many people complain (justifiably) about child support in this regard: parents who qualify to receive child support or to receive more child support by being unemployed, underemployed or who deliberately work lower paying jobs than they are qualified to do, and who then spend those support funds on themselves, not on the needs of the children.

It’s a very good point. We all know (and so do the courts) about child support recipients who (for lack of a better word) “embezzle” child support funds for their own personal use. It happens frequently, unfortunately. And it is hard to detect and to prove to a court. Even if one can prove that child support funds are being misspent by the recipient parent, most courts throw their hands in the air and say, effectively, “OK, so I agree that mom/dad is misspending the funds. What do you want me to do now? Order that you pay less child support? That will only result in the children having less, ‘cuz the recipient ain’t gonna have an epiphany and start spending the lower amount of support on the kids.” It’s a no-win situation for the innocents (children and payor alike).

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is There Any Realistic Way to Prevent Misappropriating Child Support Funds?

This is a subject that comes up frequently. It comes up frequently not because misappropriating child support is a hard problem to mitigate but because the courts don’t have the will to implement effective mitigation measures.

When one of the factors in determining the child support award is essentially “making sure the less affluent parent (the poorer parent) has enough money to afford the costs of the lifestyle to which the child is accustomed,” this question arises: how is it ensured that the money paid by the child support obligor (the one paying support) to the child support obligee (the child support recipient) is spent on funding “the lifestyle to which the child is accustomed”? An associated question is: what is to stop the child support obligee from spending the funds on the obligee herself/himself?

The answer to both questions is fairly easy to implement:

  • Audit the child’s needs (rigorously; and we can define needs as “the lifestyle to which the child is accustomed” for this purpose)
  • Determine the costs of the child’s needs
  • Award the amount of child support paid based upon the child’s needs
  • Require the child support obligee to account for (with objectively verifiable proof) the expenditure of the child support funds paid, so that both the child support obligor and the court (and even the child himself/herself) can verify that the child support funds are not being misappropriated.

Utah even has a statutory provision that gives a court the option of requiring the child support obligee to account for the expenditure of child support funds[1], but in 26 years of practice I have yet to see a court order that the child support obligee account.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277


[1] Utah Code § 78B-12-218.  Accountability of support provided to benefit child — Accounting.

(1) The court or administrative agency which issues the initial or modified order for child support may, upon the petition of the obligor, order prospectively the obligee to furnish an accounting of amounts provided for the child’s benefit to the obligor, including an accounting or receipts.

(2) The court or administrative agency may prescribe the frequency and the form of the accounting which shall include receipts and an accounting.

(3) The obligor may petition for the accounting only if current on all child support that has been ordered.

Tags: , , , ,

Does it not feel weird to anyone that a parent who does not get child custody has to pay child support to the other parent who is enjoying the kids?

I think I know why you think it’s weird. Why have the children live with one parent instead both parents on an equal custody basis? In other words, “I’ll bear the financial costs of taking care of the children when they are with me, and you bear the financial costs of taking care of the children when they are with you.” That makes, sense. But there is more than one way to view this situation. Most jurisdictions in the U.S.A. see it this way:

If the children spend more time in the care and custody of one parent than the other, then that parent will bear greater financial burden in the form of having to pay for at least the food the children eat, the laundry detergent they use in the washing of their clothes, the extra utilities expenses they represent (using more water and electricity than if the parent lived alone) and the soap, shampoo, and toilet paper the children use.

In Utah (where I practice divorce and family law), child support is intended to cover not only these expenses of the children, but their clothing and bedding, school fees, and extracurricular activities too.

This is why most jurisdictions order the parent who exercises less care and custody than the other parent (the noncustodial parent) to pay what is called “child support” to the custodial parent.

But what if the parents share equal physical custody of the children? Does that mean that neither parent will pay child support to the other? Not necessarily.

In Utah, even if the parents were awarded equal custody of the children, one parent can end up still paying child support to the other, if one parent has a higher income than the other. The reason for this is the idea that the children’s lifestyle should be the same regardless of which parent they are residing with at the time. To ensure the parent whose income is lower can afford to provide the same lifestyle for the children as their other parent, many courts (including Utah’s) will still order the richer parent to pay child support to the poorer parent for this purpose.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Does-it-not-feel-weird-to-anyone-that-a-parent-who-does-not-get-child-custody-has-to-pay-child-support-to-other-parent-who-is-enjoying-with-kids/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1

Tags: , , , ,

I am ordered to pay child support to my ex. My ex and I are both ordered to share the cost of our child’s health, medical, dental, and hospital care insurance equally. Is there anything I can do to ensure that I am reimbursed without it costing me more than the value of the reimbursement itself?

Question: I am ordered to pay child support to my ex. My ex and I are both ordered to share the cost of our child’s health, medical, dental, and hospital care insurance equally.

The amount of money that my ex owes me each month for half of the cost of the children’s insurance is less than a hundred dollars each month.

The problem is that I end up paying all of the children’s insurance costs each month, and my ex never reimburses me.

While I pay child support consistently on time and in full each month, my ex does not reimburse me for half the cost of our children’s insurance coverage each month. This is no accident or oversight on my ex as part. My ex is doing this deliberately.

It would cost me more in attorney’s fees and court costs to go after my ex for reimbursement than it would be just to eat that cost myself. Is there anything I can do to ensure that I am reimbursed without it costing me more than the value of the reimbursement itself?

Answer: Yes.

For those of you reading this who are going through a Utah divorce or child custody case, don’t have a final order yet, and know that this issue is going to arise, you can prevent it by incorporating into the child support order this provision from Utah Code § 78B-12-212:

(6)(a) The parent who provides insurance may receive credit against the base child support award or recover the other parent’s share of the child’s portion of the premium.

This subsection of the Code is what allows the court to reduce the amount of child support you pay to your ex each month by that portion of the children’s health insurance premium cost that your ex owes you. So, if you owed your ex $472 per month in child support, and your ex owed you $55 per month for your ex is half of the children’s insurance premium costs, you would end up paying your ex a total of $417 each month instead of $472 ($472 – $55 = $417).

If you didn’t have the presence of mind to include such a provision in the final decree or order of the court, you can still obtain this benefit after the fact by either filing a motion or petition with the court to have this ordered.

Or you can work through the Office of Recovery Services (ORS) to have ORS handle the collection and payment of child support, and in that process, adjust the amount of child support your ex is paid by reducing it by your ex’s half of what your ex owes you for child insurance cost reimbursement.

To request the assistance of ORS to obtain credit against child support for your ex’s half of the children’s monthly health insurance premium costs, I’ve provided a link to ORS’s website on the subject and a link to the contact information for ORS:

Asking for a Credit for the Child’s Portion of Health Insurance

Contact Child Support – State of Utah Office of Recovery Services

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , ,

The Father Just Paid Child Support, and Now He’s Asking the Mother of the Child to Start Showing Him Receipts. Do You Think He Is Right for Asking?

Absolutely.

No question about it.

Now, don’t confuse “he has every right to ask for receipts” with “he has every right to receipts”.

If a child support payor (known in some jurisdictions as the child support obligor) has reasonable articulable bases for suspecting that the child support payee (known in some jurisdictions as the child support obligee) is not responsibly spending the child support funds for the support of the child, then the payor has every right to raise the concern and to ask for proof to the contrary.

But if a child is hungry, mal-nourished, wearing clothes too small for him/her or wearing worn out clothing or wearing flip flops in the snow, has no blankets or even a bed to sleep in, etc. and yet the child support recipient parent is receiving hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars per month intended to meet those needs of the child, the child support payor has every right to raise concern with the court and every right to request that the court audit the payee and require the payee to prove that he/she is being a good steward of the child support funds.

In Utah, we have a statute on this very subject:

Utah Code § 78B-12-218. Accountability of support provided to benefit child — Accounting.

(1) The court or administrative agency which issues the initial or modified order for child support may, upon the petition of the obligor, order prospectively the obligee to furnish an accounting of amounts provided for the child’s benefit to the obligor, including an accounting or receipts.

(2) The court or administrative agency may prescribe the frequency and the form of the accounting which shall include receipts and an accounting.

(3) The obligor may petition for the accounting only if current on all child support that has been ordered.

If this statute has ever been implemented in a child support case, I have yet to see it. Whenever I’ve asked a court to implement it, the courts’ are offended that my client would have the audacity to be concerned over child support payee malfeasance.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/The-father-just-paid-child-support-and-now-he-s-asking-the-mother-of-the-child-to-start-showing-him-receipts-Do-you-think-he-is-right-for-asking

Tags: , , , , ,

My Ex-wife Is Married. Should Her and Her New Husband’s Total Household Income Be Used When Determining Child Support?

I really don’t understand why this question gets asked, and it is asked frequently. Actually, that’s not true. I do know why.

The people who usually ask this question are child support obligors (payors) who are suffering under the burden of their child support obligation. They resent having to pay so much child support, or even any child support of all. Frankly, I sympathize. Often, child support is calculated incorrectly, based upon an income that the child support obligor does not earn and never did earn. Sometimes child support is based upon the obligee falsely reporting his/her income is much lower than it really is. Other times, child support is based upon an award of child custody that is unfair to parent and child alike.

And so there are many discouraged child support obligors who become obsessed with finding a way to pay less or no child support. This obsession clouds their judgment. They begin to see “reasons” for reducing or eliminating the child support obligations that make no sense. One of these so-called reasons (that isn’t really a reason) is when the child support obligee remarries. The thinking goes in the minds of these hapless child support obligors that the remarried parent now has a new income source in the form of the income of the new spouse’s income. The problem with this argument is that while the parent may have a new spouse, that new spouse is a stepparent to the child, not that child’s parent. The child still has only two parents who are financially responsible for that child’s support. Stepparents do not have an obligation to support their stepchildren in Utah. And that is why parents who remarry do not have their spouses’ incomes included in their own incomes for child support calculation purposes in Utah.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , ,

Can the Mom End up Paying Child Support to the Father if He Was Abusive?

There are so many things wrong with this question. But thank you for asking it because it can be the start of a beneficial conversation and lead to a better understanding of divorce and family law, child custody, and support.

First, the question implies that only women receive child support from men, and thus only men pay child support to women. Wrong. Child support is paid to a parent (man or woman) who can demonstrate that he/she needs payment from the other parent to help the child maintain the lifestyle that his/her parents’ respective lifestyles can and ought to support. Many times, the child support payee (recipient) is the mother. This could be because the mother has the child in her care and custody for a greater portion of the year than does the father. It could also be because the mother earns less money than the father.

But if the father were awarded physical custody of a child for more time during the year than the mother and/or made less money than the mother, then the father could be awarded child support. Many fathers (not as many fathers as mothers, but some fathers) find themselves in this exact situation, which is why many fathers receive child support from mothers.

Just being a mother will not guarantee that a woman will receive child support. Whether a parent committed abuse rarely has anything to do with whether that parent will pay child support (see above), although it may have an indirect effect on child support if, due to a parent’s abuse, the other parent is awarded more custodial time with the child.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , ,

How Is Child Support Determined When the Non-custodial Parent Doesn’t Have a Job, but Is Living on Millions of Inheritance?

This is a more complex question than it might at first appear.

First, we need to address the matter of people who confuse beliefs with facts. If I had a dollar for every client or potential client parent who came to me claiming that the other parent was far more wealthy than he or she was letting on, I myself would be a millionaire. But that doesn’t stop most parents from making utterly unfounded allegations to the court that the other parent has income greater than he or she is reporting, has money stashed away in all kinds of secret bank accounts and other places, and or is receiving income from unearned sources, such as trusts or inheritance or investments or rental properties or intellectual property, etc.

Please bear in mind that the court is not required to believe claims uncorroborated by any credible evidence, no matter how strenuously you may assert those beliefs.

Now, in situations where in fact, a parent is not employed but does receive unearned income of some kind or another, that income can, and almost certainly will be, considered for child support calculation purposes. At the risk of oversimplifying the definition of unearned income, it is basically money that is not earned from active employment.

The Utah Code defines actual (as opposed to imputed*) income for child support calculation purposes as follows:

(1) As used in the guidelines, “gross income” includes prospective income from any source, including earned and nonearned income sources which may include salaries, wages, commissions, royalties, bonuses, rents, gifts from anyone, prizes, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, alimony from previous marriages, annuities, capital gains, Social Security benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation, income replacement disability insurance benefits, and payments from “nonmeans-tested” government programs.

(78B-12-203.  Determination of gross income — Imputed income.)

*But what if a parent is capable of earning an income but simply fails or refuses to work for an income? That is where imputation of income comes into play. In Utah, in the context of child support calculation, “imputed income” means income that if a parent is found to be capable of earning a certain amount of money, then that parent is treated for child support calculation purposes as if he/she is earning that income, even if he/she is not in fact earning it. Here is how the Utah Code imputes (and does not impute, in certain situations—see subsection 8(d) below) income for child support calculation purposes:

(8)

(a)       Income may not be imputed to a parent unless the parent stipulates to the amount imputed, the parent defaults, or, in contested cases, a hearing is held and the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding enters findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.

(b)       If income is imputed to a parent, the income shall be based upon employment potential and probable earnings considering, to the extent known:

      (i)        employment opportunities;

      (ii)       work history;

      (iii)     occupation qualifications;

      (iv)      educational attainment;

      (v)       literacy;

      (vi)      age;

      (vii)    health;

      (viii)   criminal record;

      (ix)      other employment barriers and background factors; and

      (x)       prevailing earnings and job availability for persons of similar backgrounds in the community.

(c)       If a parent has no recent work history or a parent’s occupation is unknown, that parent may be imputed an income at the federal minimum wage for a 40-hour work week. To impute a greater or lesser income, the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding shall enter specific findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.

(d)       Income may not be imputed if any of the following conditions exist and the condition is not of a temporary nature:

      (i)        the reasonable costs of child care for the parents’ minor children approach or equal the amount of income the custodial parent can earn;

      (ii)       a parent is physically or mentally unable to earn minimum wage;

      (iii)     a parent is engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills; or

      (iv)      unusual emotional or physical needs of a child require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.

So, in answer to your question about whether a parent can be ordered to pay child support even if he or she does not have a job and earn an income that way, the answer is yes, that parent can be ordered to pay child support.

(78B-12-203.  Determination of gross income — Imputed income.)

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

(3) Eric Johnson’s answer to How is child support determined when the non-custodial parent doesn’t have a job, but is living on millions of inheritance? – Quora

Tags: , , , ,

If You Are Separated and She Wants Her Money for Child Support and Alimony Early Payment for the Child Support, Can She Get It by Taking You to Court?

It appears that your question is: can child support be awarded to a parent even if a divorce or child support action has not yet been filed? If that is your question, then the answer is “yes” in many jurisdictions. You’ll want to verify whether that is the case in your particular jurisdiction.

In Utah, where I practice divorce and family law, one can obtain child support without a court order by obtaining an administrative order awarding child support instead. Here is how that process works (click this link): https://ors.utah.gov/child-support/establish-child-support-orders/

Can one obtain spousal support or alimony without a court order? I can’t say as to all jurisdictions, but in Utah the answer is: no. The only order that entitles one to spousal support or alimony is a court order. Spousal support can be ordered on a temporary basis during the pendency of a divorce action before the court issues its decree of divorce.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-separated-and-she-wants-her-money-for-child-support-and-alimony-early-payment-for-the-child-support-can-she-get-it-by-taking-you-to-court-Thats-what-she-did-before-we-was-divorced

Tags: , , ,

Nelson v. Nelson – 2023 UT App 38 – Claim Preclusion and Child Support

2023 UT App 38

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STASHIA NELSON,

Appellee,

v.

ISAAC SCOTT NELSON,

Appellant.

Opinion

No. 20210345-CA

Filed April 13, 2023

First District Court, Logan Department

The Honorable Brian G. Cannell

No. 154100713

Sara Pfrommer, Ronald D. Wilkinson, and Nathan S. Shill, Attorneys for Appellant

Jacob A. Watterson and James C. Jenkins, Attorneys for Appellee

JUDGE JOHN D. LUTHY authored this Opinion, in which

JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN and RYAN D. TENNEY concurred.

LUTHY, Judge:

¶1        This case raises issues regarding the claim preclusion

branch of the doctrine of res judicata in the context of divorce proceedings. Two years after Stashia and Isaac Nelson divorced, their circumstances had changed enough that Isaac[1] asked the district court to modify their divorce decree to give him shared physical custody of their children and to lower his monthly child support obligation. Isaac was behind in his support payments, and in response to his petition, Stashia asserted that Isaac’s “claims [were] barred, in whole or in part, because of [his] unclean hands in not being current in his child support obligation.”

¶2        The parties engaged in mediation and were able to agree on a new custody and parent-time arrangement and on a reduced monthly child support obligation for Isaac going forward. They presented their agreement to the court, and it entered a modified divorce decree that incorporated the terms of the agreement.

¶3        Stashia then initiated a separate proceeding to collect the child support that Isaac had failed to pay under the original decree. Isaac argued that all child-related financial matters, including his child support arrears, had been resolved in the proceeding to modify the divorce decree and that Stashia was therefore barred under the claim preclusion branch of the doctrine of res judicata from collecting the unpaid support. The court disagreed and ordered Isaac to pay past-due support. In response, Isaac filed a certificate of readiness for trial on an issue that he had not raised previously, namely, whether the reduction in his monthly support obligation should be backdated to when he filed his petition to modify the divorce decree. The district court ruled that there were no issues to certify for trial and entered judgment against Isaac for unpaid support in the amount of $2,835.40 plus interest. Isaac appeals.

¶4        We see no error in the conclusion that claim preclusion does not bar Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support. We also see no error in the district court’s ruling that there were no issues to certify for trial. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Parties’ Marriage and Divorce

¶5        Isaac and Stashia married in 2007 and together had two children. Stashia later initiated divorce proceedings, during which the parties reached an agreement that was incorporated into a divorce decree in March 2016.

¶6        The divorce decree provided for the parties’ joint legal custody of the children, while giving Stashia sole physical custody and Isaac parent-time. The decree also ordered Isaac to pay $768 per month in child support, based on Stashia having sole physical custody of the children and on her lack of employment at the time.

Isaac’s Petition to Modify the Divorce Decree

¶7        In June 2018, Isaac petitioned to modify the divorce decree, based on “substantial and material changes in the circumstances of the parties.” In support of modifying the decree’s custody order, Isaac alleged that he had a more “stable residence” and “flexible work schedule” than when the parties divorced; that he was also more able to “provide additional familial support” because he had recently remarried; and that Stashia, on the other hand, had violated several of the custody and parent-time provisions in the divorce decree. Based on these allegations, Isaac requested “increased parent time” and “joint physical custody.”

¶8        In support of modifying the decree’s child support order, Isaac alleged that Stashia had become employed full time and that her increased income, along with the parties’ joint physical custody of the children, if the court awarded it, merited a reduction in his child support obligation.

¶9        In her answer to Isaac’s petition, Stashia alleged, among other things, that Isaac was “not current in his child support obligation.” She then asserted, as one of several affirmative defenses, that Isaac’s “claims [were] barred, in whole or in part, because of [his] unclean hands in not being current in his child support obligation.”

¶10 During discovery, the parties exchanged financial declarations outlining their incomes, assets, and expenses, but neither party produced documents or information regarding Isaac’s past child support payments or alleged arrears.

¶11      In October 2018, the parties participated in mediation and stipulated to a temporary modification of the divorce decree. The stipulation, the terms of which were incorporated into an order, contained temporary parent-time provisions and an agreement to participate in a custody evaluation. It did not mention or modify child support, and it concluded by saying: “All issues not specifically addressed herein that have been raised or could have been raised by the parties are, hereby, reserved.”

¶12      After the agreed-upon custody evaluation was completed, the parties again participated in mediation, in May 2019. Later the same day, the district court commissioner held a settlement conference at which the parties orally presented stipulated terms to be incorporated into an amended divorce decree.

¶13      As to custody, the parties’ attorneys told the commissioner that the parties had agreed to “a joint legal, joint physical custody arrangement,” and the attorneys then explained the details of that arrangement. As to child support, they said that the parties had agreed that “[c]hild support would be 600 per month effective June 1st, 2019.” The attorneys then said that the parties had agreed that “all prior orders that are not specifically modified here . . . would remain in full force and effect.”

¶14 Toward the end of the settlement conference, the commissioner asked Isaac and Stashia if they were “willing to accept those terms as a final resolution of the issues that [were] currently pending in [the] matter.” Each responded, “Yes.”

¶15 In October 2019, the court issued an amended divorce decree incorporating the terms the parties had orally agreed to during the settlement conference. The amended decree sets forth the parties’ custody arrangement; contains provisions regarding parent-time; restates the parties’ parenting plan; provides that Isaac’s “child support obligation shall be modified to $600.00 per month effective June 1, 2019”; contains provisions regarding claiming the minor children for tax purposes; and states the parties’ responsibilities regarding medical and childcare expenses. It then provides: “This order shall be a consolidated order on custody, parent-time, and child related financial matters.”

Stashia’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause

¶16 In February 2020, Stashia filed a motion for an order to show cause,[2] alleging that Isaac owed child support arrears that had accrued between September 2016 and February 2020.

¶17 Isaac opposed Stashia’s request for unpaid child support. He noted that in response to his petition to modify the original divorce decree, Stashia “had raised the issue that [Isaac] had child support arrearage.” He pointed to the parties’ statements during the May 2019 settlement conference that they were willing to accept the terms outlined at that conference “as a final resolution of the issues that [were] currently pending in [the] matter.” (Emphasis omitted.) And he pointed to the language of the amended decree that says that the amended decree is “a consolidated order on custody, parent-time, and child related financial matters.” The district court commissioner “reviewed the pleadings on file and . . . considered the evidence and arguments presented” and disagreed with Isaac, finding that “[Stashia] did not waive [Isaac’s] child support arrears at the [May 2019] mediation between the parties or by stipulating to the Amended Decree of Divorce.”

¶18      Isaac objected to the commissioner’s recommendation. He argued that, based on “the principles of the ‘claim preclusion’ prong of the doctrine of res judicata,” the modification proceedings and amended divorce decree had “a preclusive effect” on a claim for child support arrears that accrued before entry of the amended decree. The district court overruled Isaac’s objection and entered judgment against Isaac for child support arrears “in an amount to be determined . . . based on the accountings submitted by the Parties.” After the parties submitted their accountings, the court found that Isaac’s child support arrears totaled $2,835.40.[3]

Isaac’s Certificate of Readiness for Trial

¶19      Isaac then filed, in March 2021, a certificate of readiness for trial, in which he asserted: “This case is ready for trial on the reserved issue of [whether] the June 1, 2019 child support adjustment should be backdated to the date of the filing of the Petition to Modify (June 2018).” Isaac had not previously asked the court to backdate the modified child support order to June 2018.

¶20      The district court ruled that “[t]here [were] no issues to certify for trial” and entered judgment against Isaac in the amount of $2,835.40 plus interest. Isaac now appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶21      Isaac asks us to reverse the district court’s judgment against him for unpaid child support. He contends that Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support is barred by the claim preclusion branch of res judicata.[4] Ultimately, “[w]hether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of law that we review for correctness.” Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2012 UT 38, ¶ 9, 284 P.3d 622.

¶22      Part of our claim preclusion analysis in this case, however, requires a determination of the intended scope of ambiguous language in the stipulated amended divorce decree. Where the language of a written stipulation is ambiguous, “the trial court ordinarily considers extrinsic evidence in an effort to resolve the ambiguit[y] and will make findings of fact to resolve any disputed evidence.” Christensen v. Christensen, 2018 UT App 53, ¶ 6, 420 P.3d 106 (footnote omitted). When a court looks outside the four corners of a written stipulation to determine its intended scope, that determination presents a question of fact, “which we review for clear error.” Fuller v. Bohne, 2017 UT App 28, ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 898, cert. denied, 398 P.3d 51 (Utah 2017).

¶23      Isaac also asks us to reverse the district court’s ruling, in response to his filing of a certificate of readiness for trial, that “[t]here [were] no issues to certify for trial.” The legal effect of a certificate of readiness for trial is a question of law, and “[w]e review questions of law for correctness, giving no deference to the ruling of the court below,” see Madsen v. Washington Mutual Bank FSB, 2008 UT 69, ¶ 19, 199 P.3d 898.

ANALYSIS

I. Stashia’s Claim for Unpaid Child Support
Is Not Barred by Res Judicata.

¶24 Isaac contends that the district court erred in allowing Stashia to bring a claim for unpaid child support. As we have noted, the substance of his argument is that Stashia’s claim for unpaid support is barred by the claim preclusion branch of res judicata. See supra note 3. This court has previously observed that, indeed, “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings.” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13, 994 P.2d 210 (citing Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985)), cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000). But this observation merits explanation.

¶25 Both res judicata and the law of the case doctrine can operate to give an earlier decision on a particular claim or issue preclusive effect when the same claim or issue is raised again. See Utah State Bar v. Rasmussen (In re Discipline of Rasmussen), 2013 UT 14, ¶¶ 17–18, 299 P.3d 1050. A key difference between the two doctrines, however, is that generally “[r]es judicata applies as between multiple cases while the law of the case doctrine applies to successive proceedings within one case.” State v. Waterfield, 2014 UT App 67, ¶ 39 n.12, 322 P.3d 1194, cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014).

¶26 This distinction could suggest that in a single divorce case—over which a district court has continuing jurisdiction to enter orders modifying the original decree, see Utah Code § 30-3-5(5)—only the law of the case doctrine would ever apply. To the contrary, however, we have held that res judicata applies as between “[original] divorce actions and subsequent modification proceedings.” Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 410 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). Accordingly, in Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, 994 P.2d 210, cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), we concluded that a petition to modify a divorce decree to require an ex-husband to pay support for a child conceived through artificial insemination without the ex-husband’s knowledge was “barred under the principles of res judicata” since that claim “could and should have been asserted in the original divorce action.” Id. ¶ 16. And in Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, 767 P.2d 121 (Utah Ct. App. 1988), we upheld on res judicata grounds the denial of a petition to modify a divorce decree to give an ex-wife an interest in her ex-husband’s retirement benefits, which had not been included in the original decree. See id. at 123.

¶27 In other words, we treat an original divorce proceeding and each subsequent proceeding to modify the divorce decree as separate “cases” for res judicata purposes. At the same time, we treat a divorce proceeding leading to a decree or an amended decree and any subsequent proceeding to enforce that decree or amended decree as successive proceedings within the same case. Thus, in this second context, we apply the law of the case doctrine. See Robinson v. Robinson, 2016 UT App 32, ¶¶ 26–29, 368 P.3d 147 (holding, in a proceeding to enforce a stipulated divorce decree, that law of the case barred a husband from relitigating a factual issue decided previously), cert. denied, 379 P.3d 1185 (Utah 2016).[5]

¶28      This appeal is somewhat unusual in that the “first case” for

purposes of res judicata is the modification proceeding and the “second case” is the order to show cause proceeding to enforce the child support order from the original decree. But because the order to show cause proceeding is based on the original decree, it is a separate “case” from the modification proceeding that resulted in the amended decree. We therefore apply the principles of res judicata as we analyze the potential preclusive effect of the amended decree in the order to show cause proceeding.[6]

¶29      “The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.” Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, ¶ 19, 16 P.3d 1214. “[C]laim preclusion corresponds to causes of action[;] issue preclusion corresponds to the facts and issues underlying causes of action.” Oman v. Davis School Dist., 2008 UT 70, ¶ 31, 194 P.3d 956.

¶30      “Claim preclusion . . . is premised on the principle that a controversy should be adjudicated only once.” Pioneer Home Owners Ass’n v. TaxHawk Inc., 2019 UT App 213, ¶ 41, 457 P.3d 393 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 466 P.3d 1073 (Utah 2020). It “bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously.” Hansen v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2013 UT App 132, ¶ 5, 303 P.3d 1025 (cleaned up). “Whether a claim is precluded from relitigation depends on a three-part test.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Com., 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194.

First, both cases must involve the same parties or their privies. Second, the claim that is alleged to be barred must have been presented in the first suit or be one that could and should have been raised in the first action. Third, the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

Id. (cleaned up).

¶31 Here, it is undisputed that Stashia and Isaac were the parties to both the proceeding on Isaac’s petition to modify the divorce decree—the “first case”—and the proceeding on Stashia’s subsequent claim for unpaid child support under the original decree—the “second case.” It is also undisputed that Isaac’s petition to modify the divorce decree resulted in a final judgment on the merits, in the form of the amended divorce decree. Thus, we focus our analysis on the second requirement of the claim preclusion test: whether Stashia presented or was required to present her claim for unpaid child support during the proceeding on Isaac’s petition to modify the decree.

A. Stashia did not present a claim for unpaid child support in the modification proceedings.

¶32 The second requirement of the claim preclusion test is satisfied if the claim at issue was presented in a prior action. See Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29. Isaac argues that Stashia’s answer to his petition to modify the divorce decree presented a claim for unpaid child support. Specifically, he points to Stashia’s allegation that Isaac was “not current in his child support obligation” and to her assertion, as an affirmative defense, that Isaac’s “unclean hands in not being current in his child support obligation” should bar modification of his support obligation.[7]

¶33      However, while Stashia alleged that Isaac was in arrears in

his child support payments, neither that allegation nor the affirmative defense based on that allegation presented a “claim.” “An original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim must contain a short and plain: (1) statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled to relief; and (2) demand for judgment for specified relief.” Utah R. Civ. P. 8(a). Stashia’s answer to Isaac’s petition to modify the divorce decree did not allege how much Isaac owed in unpaid child support or make a demand for relief. We cannot, therefore, say that Stashia’s affirmative defense presented a claim for res judicata purposes. See Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc., 158 P.3d 232, 237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that “affirmative defenses are not claims” for purposes of “[t]he doctrine of claim preclusion”); cf. Norman A. Koglin Assocs. v. Valenz Oro, Inc., 680 N.E.2d 283, 288 (Ill. 1997) (“A counterclaim differs from an . . . affirmative defense. A counterclaim is used when seeking affirmative relief, while an . . . affirmative defense seeks to defeat a plaintiff’s claim.”).

¶34      This is consistent with our analysis in Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 2005 UT App 536, 127 P.3d 1243. In that case, the plaintiffs were poised to purchase and develop multiple parcels of land when the defendants recorded a document purporting to grant an easement that would significantly hinder the anticipated development. Id. ¶ 4. The plaintiffs sued “for slander of title and interference with economic relations, claiming that [the defendants] had intentionally fabricated the [e]asement [d]ocument.” Id. ¶ 6. Late in the litigation, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that as a matter of law under the undisputed evidence “Hope Lane, a road running [across the parcels at issue], was a public road.” Id. ¶ 9. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the defendants had not presented a claim for Hope Lane to be declared a public road because their “original answer merely stated that ‘[a]s a separate and affirmative defense, [the] [d]efendants . . . allege that Hope Lane is a public road,’ without making any further affirmative claim for relief.” Id. (first alteration and omission in original).

¶35 On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court improperly refused to treat their Hope Lane affirmative defense as a counterclaim. See id. ¶¶ 16–17. We said that among the factors a court could consider when deciding whether to treat an affirmative defense as a counterclaim was “whether the defense as argued or articulated in the pleadings sufficiently states a claim for relief and a demand for judgment as required by rule 8(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. ¶ 18. In concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion by refusing to treat the Hope Lane affirmative defense as a counterclaim, we explained:

At the heart of the matter here is whether Plaintiffs should have recognized that Defendants’ statement “Hope Lane is a public road” was in reality a counterclaim, though labeled an affirmative defense. Here, the statement on its face is not readily identifiable as a counterclaim; it requests no relief and does not demand judgment. . . . Defendants did not properly plead a counterclaim . . . .

Id. ¶ 19. In sum, although it was in a different context, we have previously concluded that an affirmative defense that requests no relief and does not demand judgment does not present a claim. Our reaching the same conclusion here in the res judicata context “is not much of a jurisprudential leap.” Atkinson v. Stateline Hotel Casino & Resort, 2001 UT App 63, ¶ 19 n.6, 21 P.3d 667.

B. The district court’s finding that the amended divorce decree did not preclude Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support was not clearly erroneous.

¶36      Even if a party does not present a claim in her pleadings or otherwise during litigation, she might still agree to settle that unpled claim with the intent to foreclose its future litigation. If such an agreement becomes the basis of a stipulated decree, the second requirement of claim preclusion is met, and claim preclusion may apply to the settled but unpled claim. See Keith v. Aldridge, 900 F.2d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding, in the context of a “consent judgment,” that “[i]f the parties intended to foreclose through agreement litigation of a claim, assertion of that claim in a later suit, whether or not formally presented in the earlier action, is precluded”); 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4443 (3d ed. April 2022 update) (“[Following a consent judgment,] [i]f it is clear that the parties agreed to settle claims that were not reflected in the original pleadings, preclusion may extend to claims that were not even formally presented.”).[8]

¶37      Isaac relies on this principle. He contends that the amended

divorce decree, which was the product of a settlement agreement and stipulation, “expressly and unambiguously resolved” any claim for child support arrears that predated the amended decree. In support, he points to the provision of the amended decree that states: “This order shall be a consolidated order on custody, parent-time, and child related financial matters.” (Emphasis added.) Isaac interprets the phrase “child related financial matters” to mean that the amended decree was an order resolving all child related financial matters, including his child support arrears. But this is not the only plausible reading of this provision.

¶38 The amended decree addresses several child-related financial matters explicitly: the modified child support award, income tax deductions related to the children, health insurance and medical expenses for the children, and childcare expenses. It never mentions child support arrears. Thus, the phrase “child related financial matters” can plausibly be read as encompassing only the child-related financial matters explicitly addressed in the amended decree. Because this provision of the amended decree supports two plausible readings, it is ambiguous. See Moon v. Moon, 1999 UT App 12, ¶ 19, 973 P.2d 431 (“Language in a written document is ambiguous if the words may be understood to support two or more plausible meanings.” (cleaned up)), cert. denied, 982 P.2d 89 (Utah 1999).

¶39 “Ordinarily, we interpret a divorce decree as we would any other written instrument, construing it in accordance with its plain meaning and according no deference to the district court’s interpretation.” Christensen v. Christensen, 2018 UT App 53, ¶ 6,

420 P.3d 106. “But where, as here, the agreement is ambiguous, the trial court ordinarily considers extrinsic evidence in an effort to resolve the ambiguit[y] and will make findings of fact to resolve any disputed evidence . . . .” Id. (footnote omitted).

¶40      The district court here considered extrinsic evidence to determine whether Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support was encompassed within the amended decree, and it made a factual finding that the claim for unpaid child support was not encompassed within the decree. Among the evidence considered were the oral representations the parties made during their May 2019 settlement conference and a declaration provided by Isaac, both of which Isaac directed the court to when he opposed Stashia’s motion for an order to show cause. The district court considered this evidence and found that Stashia did not waive her claim for unpaid child support.

¶41      When, as here, a court looks outside the four corners of a stipulated judgment to determine its intended scope, that determination is a determination of fact, which we review for clear error. See Noel v. James, 2022 UT App 33, ¶ 11, 507 P.3d 832 (“The scope of a stipulation presents a question of fact, which we review for clear error.” (cleaned up)); Fuller v. Bohne, 2017 UT App 28, ¶ 9, 392 P.3d 898 (same), cert. denied, 398 P.3d 51 (Utah 2017). And “[f]indings of fact are clearly erroneous only if no reasonable factfinder could review the evidence presented and arrive at the disputed finding.” Blackhawk Townhouses Owners Ass’n Inc. v. J.S., 2018 UT App 56, ¶ 23, 420 P.3d 128.

¶42      We see no clear error in the district court’s finding that the parties’ amended decree was not intended to be preclusive of Stashia’s claim for child support arrears. Isaac’s child support arrears were not mentioned at all during the May 2019 settlement conference. A reasonable factfinder might therefore believe it a stretch to assume that when Stashia and Isaac told the commissioner they were “willing to accept [the] terms [that had been outlined in the settlement conference] as a final resolution of the issues that [were] currently pending in [the] matter,” they would have thought that those issues included Isaac’s alleged child support arrears.

¶43 Moreover, after the parties said that the modified child support obligation would become effective June 1, 2019, they told the commissioner that “all prior orders that are not specifically modified [as outlined in the settlement conference] . . . would remain in full force and effect.” A reasonable view of this evidence is that when the parties accepted the terms of the stipulation “as a final resolution of the issues that [were] currently pending in this matter,” these were the terms that they intended to accept: that the child support order prior to June 1, 2019, as well as any outstanding obligations under it, “would remain in full force and effect.”

C. Stashia was not required to present her claim for unpaid child support in the modification proceeding.

¶44      Even if a claim was not presented or settled in an initial action, the second requirement of the claim preclusion test can be met by showing that the subsequently raised claim “could and should have been raised in the first action.” Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Com., 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194 (cleaned up). A subsequent claim could and should have been brought in an earlier action “if [both claims] arise from the same operative facts, or in other words from the same transaction.” Id. ¶ 30. To determine if two claims arise from the same transaction, a court may consider “whether the facts [of each] are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations.” Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2012 UT 38, ¶ 14, 284 P.3d 622 (cleaned up). But “no single factor is determinative.” Id. (cleaned up). “Therefore, every consideration need not be addressed or considered in every case.” Id.

¶45      Here, Isaac’s claims for modification of the divorce decree were not related in origin to Stashia’s later claim for unpaid child support. Isaac’s claims to modify the divorce decree originated from alleged changes to his work and home life since the entry of the original decree (including his recent remarriage), alleged violations by Stashia of the divorce decree’s custody and parent-time provisions, and Stashia’s recent full-time employment. In contrast, Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support originated from Isaac’s alleged failure to abide by the divorce decree’s child support order. These differing origins suggest that the parties’ respective claims do not arise from the same transaction. See In re Marriage of Potts, 542 N.E.2d 179, 181–82 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (observing that “[t]here [was] no significant evidentiary overlap” between a father’s claim for unpaid child support and the mother’s claim for modification of the support obligation and, thus, holding that res judicata did not bar the father’s separate action for unpaid support); Zickefoose v. Muntean, 399 N.W.2d 178, 180–81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (concluding that a stipulation to amend a divorce decree to reduce the father’s child support obligation was “a totally different and distinct action” from the mother’s later “motion to compel payment of child support arrearages” and, thus, that res judicata did not bar the mother’s later action for arrearages).

¶46 Additionally, neither Isaac nor Stashia conducted discovery related to Isaac’s alleged child support arrears during the modification proceeding, which suggests that it was not their expectation that Isaac’s claims for modification of the original decree and Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support under the original decree would be treated as a single trial unit.

¶47      Moreover, Utah Code section 78B-12-210(9)(a) provides for the filing of a petition to modify a child support order based on a substantial change of circumstances, while our rules require a motion—previously a motion “for an order to show cause,” see Utah R. Civ. P. 7(q) (2020), and now “a motion to enforce order,” see Utah R. Civ. P. 7B—to recover unpaid child support. By providing different procedures for modifying a child support order and enforcing a child support order, our code and rules also implicitly recognize that these two types of actions generally do not arise from the same transaction. Cf. In re P.D.D., 256 S.W.3d 834, 842, 844 (Tex. App. 2008) (reasoning in part that because the Texas Family Code “does not require their joinder,” actions for “delinquent child support” and actions for “modification of . . . future child support obligations” are “separate and definable questions” and the one is not barred by the other under a “transactional approach” to res judicata).

¶48      The differing origins of Isaac’s and Stashia’s respective claims, the apparent expectations of the parties, and the procedural scheme set forth in our code and rules demonstrate that Isaac’s claim for modification of the original child support order and Stashia’s claim for enforcement of the original order did not arise from the same transaction. Thus, Stashia was not required to present her claim for unpaid child support during the proceeding on Isaac’s petition to modify the divorce decree.

¶49      Because Stashia neither presented nor settled her claim for unpaid child support during the proceeding on Isaac’s petition to modify the divorce decree, and because she was not required to present her claim for unpaid child support during that proceeding, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply to bar Stashia’s claim.[9]

II. The District Court Did Not Err by Concluding that There
Were No Issues to Certify for Trial.

¶50      Isaac also argues that “[t]he district court erred when it

refused to allow [him] to counter Stashia’s Order to Show Cause with his request to retroactively apply the child support modification.” His request to retroactively apply the child support modification took the form of a certificate of readiness for trial filed nearly a year and a half after the modification proceeding to which it related had concluded. Because the modification proceeding had concluded, and because Isaac filed no rule 59 or 60(b) motion to alter or relieve him from the resulting judgment—i.e., the amended divorce decree, with its June 1, 2019 effective date for the modified support order—Isaac’s certificate of readiness for trial landed in a legal vacuum and had no legal effect.[10] With no pending proceeding to which retroactive application of the modified support order applied, the district court was correct to conclude that “[t]here [were] no issues to certify for trial.”

CONCLUSION

¶51      Stashia did not present an affirmative claim for child support arrears during the modification proceeding. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Stashia’s claim for those arrears was not encompassed within the modified divorce decree. And Stashia’s claim for those arrears did not arise out of the same transaction as the claims Isaac made in his petition to modify the decree. Accordingly, Stashia’s claim for unpaid child support is not barred by res judicata. Additionally, the district court’s ruling in response to Isaac’s certificate of readiness for trial—that there were no issues to certify for trial—was not in error.

¶52 Affirmed.

 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

 

[1] As is our practice, because the parties share the same last name, we use their first names, with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality.

[2] The “motion to enforce order” procedure outlined in rule 7B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure has now “replace[d] and supersede[d] the prior order to show cause procedure” in the context of “domestic relations actions, including divorce.” Utah R. Civ. P. 7B(a), (i), (j). A similar “motion to enforce order” procedure outlined in rule 7A now applies in the context of other civil proceedings. See id. R. 7A. In recommending rule 7B, the Utah Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure left untouched rule 101(k), which addresses motion practice before district court commissioners and still recites requirements for “[a]n application to the court for an order to show cause.” Id. R. 101(k). The committee may wish to revise rule 101(k) to conform rule 101(k)’s provisions to those of rule 7B.

 

[3] Our resolution of this appeal makes determining the portion of this amount that accrued before entry of the amended divorce decree unnecessary.

[4] Isaac does not always frame his argument in terms of “claim preclusion” or “res judicata.” In one section of his principal brief, he asserts that the claim for unpaid child support was “resolved” by the amended divorce decree. In another, he argues that “the issues to which the parties have stipulated [have] become ‘settled’ and ‘not reserved for future consideration.’” And at one point he does explicitly invoke “the ‘claim preclusion’ prong of the doctrine of res judicata.” Regardless of their phrasing, each of these arguments is, in substance, an argument for application of the doctrine of res judicata. See infra ¶¶ 26-28; Mel Trimble Real Estate v. Monte Vista Ranch, Inc., 758 P.2d 451, 453 (Utah Ct. App.) (explaining that res judicata “bars the relitigation . . . of a claim for relief previously resolved” (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 769 P.2d 819 (Utah 1988); Res judicata, Black’s Law Dictionary (abridged 6th ed. 1991) (defining res judicata as “a thing or matter settled by judgment” (emphasis added)).

Because Isaac never uses the terms “issue preclusion” or “collateral estoppel” and never cites a case applying that branch of res judicata, and because he did not do so in the district court, we address only the claim preclusion branch of res judicata. See generally 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (“Issues that are not raised at trial are usually deemed waived.”); State v. Sloan, 2003 UT App 170, ¶ 13, 72 P.3d 138 (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue).

[5] Application of res judicata in the divorce context might be seen as “distinguish[able]” from its application in other contexts in another way as well. See Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 410 (Utah Ct. App. 1990). That is because in the divorce context the preclusive effect of res judicata can be avoided based on “the equitable doctrine that allows courts to reopen [prior] determinations if the moving party can demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances.” Id. In fact, some prior determinations in divorce cases may be reopened on a showing of a material change of circumstances that is less than substantial. See, e.g.Miller v. Miller, 2020 UT App 171, ¶ 18, 480 P.3d 341 (observing that “when modifying parent-time (as opposed to custody), the petitioner is required to make only some showing of a change in circumstances, which does not rise to the same level as the substantial and material showing required when a district court alters custody” (cleaned up)). Though this might be seen as a distinguishing feature of res judicata in the divorce setting, it is consistent with our statement that “[t]he principles of res judicata apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings,” Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13, 994 P.2d 210, cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000), because a decision based on a changed set of material facts is not a decision on the same question as the one presented previously.

[6] We are not alone in this approach. See, e.g.In re Marriage of Potts, 542 N.E.2d 179, 180–82 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (applying res judicata principles to hold that, under the facts of the case, an amended divorce decree that modified a child support obligation did not bar a claim for child support arrears that accrued under the prior decree); Zickefoose v. Muntean, 399 N.W.2d 178, 180–81 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (same).

[7] “The doctrine of unclean hands expresses the principle that a party who comes into equity for relief must show that his conduct has been fair, equitable, and honest as to the particular controversy in issue.” Goggin v. Goggin, 2013 UT 16, ¶ 60, 299 P.3d 1079 (cleaned up).

[8] “In Utah, . . . the rules of claim preclusion are ‘virtually identical’ to the federal rules . . . .” Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 14, ¶ 9, 393 P.3d 285 (citation omitted).

[9] The district court expressed its ruling against Isaac’s claim preclusion argument by finding that Stashia “did not waive” her claim for unpaid child support. Our ruling is that Stashia neither waived nor forfeited her right to assert that claim. “Though principles of waiver and forfeiture are often used interchangeably, the two concepts are technically distinct.” Reller v. Argenziano, 2015 UT App 241, ¶ 30, 360 P.3d 768 (cleaned up). “Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, whereas waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Id. (cleaned up). Stashia did not waive her known right to bring a claim for unpaid support since, as we have concluded, she did not intentionally relinquish it through settlement or otherwise. Nor did she forfeit that right by the issue of failing to timely assert it since, as we have concluded, she was not required to present her claim during the modification proceeding. See id. ¶ 31 (holding that failure to timely amend a complaint to assert a claim for retroactive child support amounted to a forfeiture). We leave for another day the question of whether or how a claim for unpaid child support may be settled without running afoul of the statutory limitation on the waiver of child support claims. See generally Utah Code § 78B-12-109(1) (“Waiver and estoppel [of child support] shall apply only to the custodial parent when there is no order already established by a tribunal if the custodial parent freely and voluntarily waives support specifically and in writing.”); Cahoon v. Evans, 2011 UT App 148, ¶ 3, 257 P.3d 454 (holding that Utah Code section 78B-12-109 “rules out waiver and estoppel in all instances where there is a child support order already in place”).

[10] Isaac makes no attempt to address this procedural reality. Instead, he uses the certificate of readiness for trial as a vehicle to argue that he stipulated to a June 1, 2019 effective date for the modified child support order only “[i]n exchange” for Stashia giving up the right to pursue her claim for child support arrears. But the district court found that the parties did not intend such an exchange, and we have affirmed that finding. See supra ¶¶ 36–43.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Can I Do if Ex-spouse Wants to Pay/Receive Less Child Support by Misrepresenting His/Her Income?

I will answer this question in the context of Utah law because Utah is the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law. It could be that other jurisdictions have similar laws or rules, but you will need to inquire with a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction to be sure.

In Utah, the legislature and courts are aware of and wise to 1) those who would try to avoid paying child support 2) those who would try to obtain excessive child support by “self-impoverishing”, i.e., claiming to earn or being able to earn less than they actually do or can. This is why there are code sections and court rules to enable a party and the court to dig into the income history of the opposing party.

For example, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provide means by which opposing parties can conduct what is known as “discovery”, which is simply a legal term for the ability to obtain and the process for obtaining documentation and other forms of evidence relevant to the legal action. Through discovery a party can obtain bank, credit card, and other financial institution records of the opposing party. Through discovery a party can obtain business records, titles, can inspect land and buildings, require an opposing party to submit to a physical examination and income-potential evaluations, etc. in an effort to find out the extent of the opposing party’s income or reasonable ability to obtain income, if that party is currently unemployed.

That is not all. The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure also provide that each spouse in a divorce action or each ex-spouse in an action to modify child support must exchange a financial declaration form, with supporting documents. See Utah Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26.1; parties must, in the financial declaration:

  • identify their employer(s) and rate of pay or annual salary
  • report their gross monthly income
  • calculate their monthly tax deductions and net, after tax income
  • identify in detail their monthly expenses for each party and and any spouse, children or other dependents in the household
  • business interests and valuation of the business(s)
  • financial assets
  • real estate interests
  • personal property (Such as vehicles, boats, trailers, major equipment, furniture, jewelry, and collectibles)
  • debts owed
  • and provide:

o    For every item and amount listed in the Financial Declaration, excluding monthly expenses, copies of statements verifying the amounts listed on the Financial Declaration that are reasonably available to the party.

o    For the two tax years before the petition was filed, complete federal and state income tax returns, including Form W-2 and supporting tax schedules and attachments, filed by or on behalf of that party or by or on behalf of any entity in which the party has a majority or controlling interest, including, but not limited to, Form 1099 and Form K-1 with respect to that party.

o    Pay stubs and other evidence of all earned and un-earned income for the 12 months before the petition was filed.

o    All loan applications and financial statements prepared or used by the party within the 12 months before the petition was filed.

o    Documents verifying the value of all real estate in which the party has an interest, including, but not limited to, the most recent appraisal, tax valuation and refinance documents.

o    All statements for the 3 months before the petition was filed for all financial accounts, including, but not limited to checking, savings, money market funds, certificates of deposit, brokerage, investment, retirement, regardless of whether the account has been closed including those held in that party’s name, jointly with another person or entity, or as a trustee or guardian, or in someone else’s name on that party’s behalf.

o    If the foregoing documents are not reasonably available or are in the possession of the other party, the party disclosing the Financial Declaration must estimate the amounts entered on the Financial Declaration, the basis for the estimation and an explanation why the documents are not available.

By way of another example, here is an excerpt from 78B-12-203 (Determination of gross income — Imputed income):

(5)

(a) When possible, gross income should first be computed on an annual basis and then recalculated to determine the average gross monthly income.

(b) Each parent shall provide verification of current income. Each parent shall provide year-to-date pay stubs or employer statements and complete copies of tax returns from at least the most recent year unless the court finds the verification is not reasonably available. Verification of income from records maintained by the Department of Workforce Services may be substituted for pay stubs, employer statements, and income tax returns.

(c) Historical and current earnings shall be used to determine whether an underemployment or overemployment situation exists.

(6) Incarceration of at least six months may not be treated as voluntary unemployment by the office in establishing or modifying a support order.

(7) Gross income includes income imputed to the parent under Subsection (8).

(8)

(a) Income may not be imputed to a parent unless the parent stipulates to the amount imputed, the parent defaults, or, in contested cases, a hearing is held and the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding enters findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.

(b) If income is imputed to a parent, the income shall be based upon employment potential and probable earnings considering, to the extent known:

(i) employment opportunities;

(ii) work history;

(iii) occupation qualifications;

(iv) educational attainment;

(v) literacy;

(vi) age;

(vii) health;

(viii) criminal record;

(ix) other employment barriers and background factors; and

(x) prevailing earnings and job availability for persons of similar backgrounds in the community.

(c) If a parent has no recent work history or a parent’s occupation is unknown, that parent may be imputed an income at the federal minimum wage for a 40-hour work week. To impute a greater or lesser income, the judge in a judicial proceeding or the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding shall enter specific findings of fact as to the evidentiary basis for the imputation.

(d) Income may not be imputed if any of the following conditions exist and the condition is not of a temporary nature:

(i) the reasonable costs of child care for the parents’ minor children approach or equal the amount of income the custodial parent can earn;

(ii) a parent is physically or mentally unable to earn minimum wage;

(iii) a parent is engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills; or

(iv) unusual emotional or physical needs of a child require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.

(emphasis added)

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-can-I-do-to-protect-my-rights-if-my-ex-husband-wants-to-pay-less-child-support-by-just-saying-he-makes-less-money-last-year-without-actual-proofs-Can-I-make-him-provide-his-income-and-bank-statements-every

Tags: ,

If Parents Are Divorced or Separated, Can the Parent With Full Custody of the Child Prevent the Other Parent From Seeing the Child, Even if That Parent Is Paying Child Support?

Unless:

  • there is a statute or court order that permits it; or
  • this kind of statute or court order could be the kind that permits the temporary denial of contact with the child on the grounds that it is necessary to protect a child from abuse or neglect;
  • this kind of statute or court order could be the kind that permits the temporary denial of contact with the child on the grounds that the other parent is suspected of engaging is engaging in activity that places the child at risk of harm (such as substance abuse, criminal behavior, severe mental illness, etc.);
  • the other parent was never (often referred to as the “noncustodial parent”) was never awarded any visitation (also know as “parent-time”) rights in the first place,

then no, the parent awarded sole (sometimes referred to colloquially as “full”) custody of the child cannot legally and lawfully prevent the other parent from contact with their minor child.

The fact that the noncustodial parent is paying child support likely makes it even harder to justify interfering with that parent’s visitation/parent-time, rights, if he/she has them.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/If-parents-are-divorced-or-separated-can-the-parent-with-full-custody-of-the-child-prevent-the-other-parent-from-seeing-the-child-even-if-that-parent-is-paying-child-support/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , ,

Do I Need a Lawyer for Child Support Hearing?

If you’re smart, yes.

If you’re cautious, yes.

If you’re not penny wise and pound foolish, yes.

Why? The law and the legal system are not intuitive. Courts are generally not that patient, friendly, or all that sympathetic with people either. If you think that you can simply go to court for a friendly chat and that you “reason” with the opposing side’s lawyer and/or the court, think again. People who are not lawyers and who try to handle legal matters without a lawyer’s representation almost always regret it, whether immediately or over the long term. Child support is no exception.

Divorce and family law lawyers exist and make money because what they know about the law how to navigate the legal system has value to those who don’t work within the legal system. In other words, the cost of a good lawyer is greater than the savings (or costs, if you will) of going it alone. Yes, there are many divorce and family lawyers who are incompetent and/or cheats. They are useless—often worse than useless—and they are to be avoided like the plague (take care in vetting who your lawyer will be). But a knowledgeable, skilled, diligent lawyer is worth the fees he/she charges.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Do-I-need-a-lawyer-for-child-support-hearing/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags:

What Happens When Someone Refuses to Pay Child Support?

I cannot answer this question for all jurisdictions, but I can tell you how the law applies in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law (Utah).

Many things can happen. What follows is not an exhaustive list of consequences of not paying child support, but it’s a pretty good one just the same. Not paying child support as court-ordered can result in:

  • damage to your negative credit score/reports
  • judgments can be issued for the unpaid amount of child support, which judgment can be collected by various means, including
    • garnishing wages to collect arrearages (“arrearage” means an amount of money owed that is past due for payment);
    • garnishing funds in your bank or other financial accounts;
    • additionally, the judgment can include interest on the unpaid judgment amount and the costs of collection, if any.
  • the delinquent child support obligor (an “obligor” is a person obligated to make payments) being held in contempt of court and then penalized (also known as “sanctioned”) for noncompliance with the court order. Those sanctions can include:
    • a fine not exceeding $1,000;
    • incarceration in the county jail for up to 30 days; or
    • both a fine not exceeding $1,000 and incarceration in the county jail for up to 30 days
    • an award of attorney’s fees in favor of the prevailing party against the party who is found in contempt,
    • having one’s licenses revoked until the child support arrearages are fully paid. Which licenses, you may ask?:
      • driver’s license
      • professional license(s)
      • hunting, fishing, and other recreational licenses
  • the delinquent obligor being criminally prosecuted for what is known as “criminal nonsupport”
  • the Office of Recovery Services can:
    • intercept the delinquent obligor’s state and/or federal income tax refunds;
    • cause use of the delinquent obligor’s passport to be suspended or cause it to be revoked until the arrearages are paid.
  • liens can be issued against your vehicle or other kinds of property.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-someone-refuses-to-pay-child-support/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , ,

My question to Utah Office of Recovery Services (ORS):

Good morning, 

I am a divorce and child custody lawyer. I have a question that all of my clients ask me that I don’t have the answer to: 

“Why does ORS and/or the court need my child’s Social Security Number in a child support case? I can see why they would need the Social Security Numbers for both parents, but why for the kids?” 

It’s a good question. Do you know the answer why (other than “it’s in the rules”), and if you don’t, can you point me in the direction of who knows the answer? 

We are unable to answer this question on behalf of the courts, but can provide you some of the reasons why ORS needs a child’s Social Security Number.  

When ORS establishes legal paternity for a child, we are required to report the paternity establishment to vital records, and this process requires the child’s Social Security Number to be sent with the child’s other information (name, date of birth, etc.).  On the enforcement side, ORS is required to enforce medical insurance in conjunction with enforcing child support.  As part of this process we send the parent’s employer the National Medical Support Notice ordering the child to be enrolled in insurance. The form includes the child’s Social Security Number, because it is required to enroll the child in insurance. This is a federal form all child support agencies are required to use.   

Thank you for your time and email. 

Customer Service 

Office of Recovery Services 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!