In the Interest of S. A. L. and C. R. S. L. v. the State of Texas
03-24-00609-CV
Tex. App.May 2, 2025Background
- Peter Edward Laurie and Brooke Stan were divorced in 2018 with two children; child support was initially not ordered, but in July 2019 Laurie was ordered to pay $500/month in child support and $266.65 in medical/dental support.
- In October 2020, the court confirmed support arrearages against Laurie and set monthly arrearage payments.
- In 2023, the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) sought to modify the support order, and Stan also sought increased child and medical/dental support, asserting changed circumstances.
- At the August 2024 hearing, evidence established Laurie's income had increased substantially since 2019, when his support had been based on a presumed teacher's salary; as of 2024, he was employed as an attorney making around $9,000/month gross.
- The trial court granted the modification, raising Laurie's child support and medical/dental obligations, and denied his request for a show-cause order against the OAG regarding application of arrearage payments.
- Laurie appealed, raising issues about sufficiency of the evidence of changed circumstances, his ability to pay, retroactivity of support, authority regarding medical/dental support increases, and OAG's actions with arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Material/Substantial Change | Testimony was insufficient to show a material change since 2019. | Laurie's higher income and employment constitute changed facts. | Sufficient evidence existed; modification upheld |
| 2. Ability to Pay | New support exceeds ability to pay, creating hardship. | Amount based on guidelines/actual income; expenses not controlling. | Guidelines control; support not abuse of discretion |
| 3. Retroactive Support | Court imposed retroactive child support improperly. | Support only modified from the permissible date under statute. | No improper retroactive support; only forward. |
| 4. Authority to Modify Medical/Dental | Statute doesn't permit modifying agreed med/dental obligations. | Statute includes medical/dental in "support" for modification. | Court had authority; modification affirmed. |
| 5. Show-Cause vs. OAG | OAG violated court order on arrearages, warrants show-cause. | OAG acted within statutory authority; payments applied properly. | No abuse; denial of show-cause affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (child support orders only disturbed for clear abuse of discretion)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (paramount guiding principle in child support is child's best interest)
- Ex parte Gonzales, 414 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1967) (court cannot hold obligor in contempt if unable to pay)
- McCartor v. Parr, 612 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1981) (child support must correspond to financial ability of obligor)
- Kominczak v. Kominczak, 474 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1971) (support must not deprive obligor of necessary living expenses)