In Re Laura
13 A.3d 330
| N.H. | 2010Background
- December 2007 Uniform Support Order: Laura to pay $57/week to Scott.
- Laura lost his job; parties privately agreed to reduce to $50/month, via a signed but unfiled motion,
- Laura continued reduced payments briefly, then stopped.
- DCSS notified Laura of arrearages based on the $57/week order and directed payments to DCSS.
- Trial court declared the private agreement ineffective to modify the final order; arrearages calculation set at $57/week minus credits; arrearage held in abeyance pending a future hearing on modification.
- Laura appealed, contending the private agreement bound the court and modified the support without formal court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private agreement to modify child support modifies a court-ordered amount without court approval | Laura asserts the private agreement binds and alters the order | Court must approve departures from guidelines; private agreement cannot modify order | No; private agreement cannot modify the order without judicial approval |
| Whether RSA 458-C requires court findings to depart from guidelines in private agreements | Laura relies on lack of court filing to show binding effect | Statute requires court findings and approval for departures from guidelines | Yes; court must approve and make explicit findings; presumption favoring guideline amount applies |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Resource Tech. Corp., 624 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts rely on court approval to modify court-ordered support)
- Brock v. Cavanaugh, 1 Conn.App. 138 (Conn. App. 1984) (support orders can only be modified by the court)
- Culhane v. Culhane, 119 N.H. 389 (1979) (parents cannot bargain away children's right to support; court bears duty to set support)
- Lownds v. Lownds, 551 A.2d 775 (Conn. 1988) (best interests and duty to protect children's support; cannot be delegated)
- Carr & Edmunds, 156 N.H. 498 (2007) (guidelines presumptively correct; departures require special circumstances)
- Barrett & Coyne, 150 N.H. 520 (2004) (guidelines ensure uniformity and parental sharing of support)
- Baker & Winkler, 154 N.H. 186 (2006) (special circumstances may justify deviation; needs proper analysis)