Massachusetts Appellate Cases / Child Support
On this page we are compiling links to the full text of important Massachusetts Appellate Cases on Family Law and Divorce decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
These cases are for educational purpose only and should not be used for any official or legal purpose. Please consult official reports. Below you will be able to search for Massachusetts Appeals Court Slip Opinions and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Slip Opinions relating to Child Support.
Child Support Cases in Massachusetts
Ames v. Perry In a modification proceeding the judge properly applied the standard of Knox v. Remick, and correctly determined that the plaintiff (mother) had not demonstrated that the level of child support was inadequate to warrant a modification of the separation agreement so as to increase child support.
Brooks v. Piela, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 731(2004). In a modification action for child support the probate judge did not abuse her discretion by considering the non-custodial parent’s enhanced income and the disparity of the standard of living in each household, where the judge considered the children’s needs and stipulated evidence that the children’s ages and their increased expenses justified an increase in child support.
Canning v. Juskalian
Clark v. Barba
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.
DeCristofaro v. DeCristofaro 24 Mass. App. Ct. 231 Discussion of standards for modification of a judgment of divorce with respect to support orders embodied in a separation agreement.
Departement of Revenue v. Foss A modification of a child support order, which increased the father's support obligation but deviated substantially from the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, was not supported by sufficient reasons or specific findings to have warranted a departure from the guidelines; the judgment of modification was vacated. In a proceeding for modification of a child support order, the Probate Court judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to make the increased support order retroactive to the date of service of the complaint, where the evidence did not support the mother's claim that the father deliberately delayed the proceedings in order to avoid an increased support obligation, nor did the judge abuse his discretion in ordering the parties to alternately claim the dependent child tax exemption.
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
Eccleston vs. Bankosky The court concluded that a Probate Court judge lacked authority to order a divorced father to pay support after a child's eighteenth birthday to a third party appointed as his child's guardian and with whom his child was domiciled. The court concluded that a Probate Court judge had the authority pursuant to equity powers vested by the Legislature to impose a postminority support order on a child's financially able noncustodial parent or parents, insofar as the child was found not to be emancipated.
Flaherty v. Flaherty A child support order was based on an attribution of the father´s earnings and unsupported by the judge´s findings. The matter was remanded for specific and detailed findings.
Hamilton v. Pappalardo 42 Mass. App. Ct. 471 - Case involving a modification of Child Support order and education expenses.
Hartog v. Hartog In a complaint for modification, one of the parties' four children had developed a mental illness since the divorce judgment, and the youngest child, age nine, appeared to be at risk of developing the same disorder. The wife had been allowed the exclusive right to occupy the marital home for two years but the period was now extended an additional eight years. This provision was construed as one for child support, and a material change in circumstances required such a modification in the best interest of the parties' nine year old child living with the mother.
K.B. v. D.B. A husband had voluntarily supported a child, born to his wife during their marriage but fathered by another man, prior to learning conclusively that he was not the father. The judge did not err in concluding that the husband was not estopped to raise the defense of nonpaternity.
Kirwood v. Kirwood Case involving child support payments after the child has reached the age of 18 but still lives and depends on his parents.
Langerman v. Langerman Each of the parties brought a complaint for divorce, and on each a judgment of divorce was entered on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. The wife has argued error only as to so much of the judgments entered as provided for alimony and child support. Not enough evidence presented by parties to find out weather the judge abused his discretions.
Larson v. Larson Case involving child support and the emancipation of a child according to the law. In an action for civil contempt alleging that a husband had violated the parties' divorce judgment by arbitrarily reducing alimony and child support payments, the judge did not err in determining the issue of a child's principal dependence by placing greater weight on the wife's indirect and noneconomic contributions, and on her inferior economic status, than on the husband's substantial monetary contributions.
Leonardo v. Leonardo A probate judge ordered the husband to pay a certain amount per week in child support for the care and maintenance of his five minor children that was more than the amount calculated under the child support guidelines.
LoStracco v. LoStracco Child support provisions allowed the wife to have the use and occupancy of the marital home, but required that the home be sold in the event of her remarriage and the proceeds divided between the parties. The court concluded that the condition requiring sale of the house could not stand in view of the judge's stated objective of providing stability of the home environment of the parties' children; the issue of sale was to be left to modification proceedings should a change in the parties' circumstances occur.
L.W.K. v. E.R.C Child support case involving the obligor's death. The court concluded that a child support order should be modified to credit to the father's estate, now the obligor, the amount of Social Security death benefits that the child, as a qualified minor, was entitled to receive based on the father's participation in the Social Security system. A judge in the Probate and Family Court did not have authority to enter an order to secure postminority educational support by setting aside a lump sum in trust from the estate of the child's deceased father, where the child did not presently qualify for such support.
Martin v. Martin
Naranjo v. Naranjo 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.
Pagar v. Pagar A proceeding seeking modification of the alimony and child support provisions was not warranted because the judge's findings indicated that the wife's income had not increased and her expenses had not decreased. The husband's financial statements were too inconclusive to warrant a finding that he was unable to pay the full amount of his arrearages.
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.
Rosenberg v. Merida Where a noncustodial parent receives Social Security disability income (SSDI) dependency benefits, under the Massachusetts child support guidelines that amount is attributable as income to that parent for computation of child support, and that parent is then entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit equal to the amount of the SSDI dependency benefits against the support obligation; however, a parent, in order to apply the credit, must file a complaint for modification of the child support obligation or otherwise seek approval of a judge. in this case the judge made no findings relating to the amount of the support obligation or relating to his award of sole legal custody of the minor child to the mother. Case was remanded. The assets of the father were attached in the amount of $60,000, to secure his child support obligation and for potential contribution to the minor child's college education expenses.
Ruml v. Ruml
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.
Stolk vs. Stolk
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. TOP |
