Massachusetts Slip Opinions - Massachusetts Appellate Cases - Child Support Cases in MA

Croak v. Bergeron, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 750 (2006): The parties were divorced in 1998. There were two children born of the marriage. In 1999, the mother filed a compliant for modification, and the child support was increased to $969.54 per week. In 2000, the father filed a complaint for modification of his child support obligations because of his involuntary unemployment. After a trial on the merits of his complaint,the trial judge held that the father failed to show a material and substantial change in circumstance to justify a reduction in child support, and the father appealed. While the complaint was pending, a temporary order was issued on September 13, 2000, that reduced the weekly support from $969.54 to $156.92 a week, with the difference to accrue until a final judgment was made. After the trial, the trial judge found that the father's work history was in the nuclear power industry but was unemployed at times. The father's unemployment coincided with his court appearances so that he could report he was unemployed. The trial judge also found that since September 13, 2000 up to the judgment dated November 19, 2003, the father received $447,700 in income and assets (including a settlement and inheritance), while the mother and children struggled to meet their needs. The father's income and assets are included as income and the child support guidelines. The trial judge has discretion to consider the totality of the parties' circumstances. Based on the facts above, the trial judge made no error, and the judgment was affirmed.

Department of Revenue v. Roe, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 967 (1990) In paternity cases, pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 209C, § 9, courts have the authority to order retroactive child support for this period from the birth of the child to the entry of the order.

Department of Revenue v. Doe, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 924 (1991) In paternity cases, pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 209C, § 9, courts have the authority to order retroactive child support for this period from the birth of the child to the entry of the order.

Department of Revenue v. G.W.A, 412 Mass. 435 (1992) In paternity cases, pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 209C, § 9, courts have the authority to order retroactive child support for this period from the birth of the child to the entry of the order.

Donovan v. Donovan 15 Mass. App. Ct 61(1982) Worker’s compensation benefits can be assigned for payment of alimony and child support.

Draper v. Burke

Martin v. Martin

Naranjo v. Naranjo Complaint for divorce filed in the Worcester Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on February 4, 1992. The order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment is vacated. That portion of the judgment providing that the Commonwealth is owed $54,164.73 is vacated. The balance of the judgment, incorporating the parties' agreement as to Naranjo's child support obligations and preserving for future determination the issue whether and in what amount child support payments may be due and owing to the Commonwealth, is affirmed.

O’Meara v. Doherty, 53. Mass.App.Ct. 599 (2002). In paternity cases, pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 209C, § 9, courts have the authority to order retroactive child support for this period from the birth of the child to the entry of the order.

Passemato v. Passemato: (1998) Leading Case of Educational Trust for College Expenses.

Richardson v. Department of Revenue, 423 Mass. 378 (1996). A person who voluntarily acknowledges his paternity, and agrees to pay child support is not entitled to recover child support payments when it was determined that he was not the father nine (9) years later.

Schuler v. Schuler: 382 Mass. 366 (1981). The husband filed a Complaint for Modification to reduce his support obligations because he had a substantial reduction in income. The Court refused to reduce his support payments because he failed to show “a material change in circumstances” as he still had the ability to pay his current support obligations.

Smith v. Edelman:

Silvia v. Silvia 9 Mass. Appt. Ct 339(1980)—The income or assets of a second spouse can be considered by the court in awarding child support because the existence of these assets or income effects the ability of parents to use their own resources to pay child support.

White v. Laingor - The parties were divorced in 1988. In 1993, the parties agreed that the father would pay child support for the parties’ two minor children. In 1995, the mother re-married. In 1997, the mother filed a complaint for contempt for child support arrears, and the father filed a modification to reduce his child support obligation. The parties, through their respective counsel, negotiated an agreement wherein the father would give his consent to have the mother’s new husband adopt their two minor children, and the father would pay a lump sum of $8,000 of child support arrears, and in exchange he would be released from any past, present and future child support obligations. However, the adoption never happened because the oldest child was legally of age (12) to withhold her consent to a proposed adoption. Thereafter, the father did not pay the $8,000 and he made no further payments. The mother filed another complaint for child support arrears. The probate judge, after a hearing, enforced the parties’ agreement, ordered the father’s arrearage at $8,000, and ordered the father to continue to pay $125/week in child support and $31/week toward the arrears. The mother appealed. In the interest of public policy, there was no judicial determination that the parties’ agreement and its provisions advanced the best interests of the children. As such, the judgment was vacated by the appellate court, and remanded for modification of the child support arrearage to be paid by the father.

Home | Contact us | RF&G website | Disclaimer | Directions | Site map