P.F. v. Department of Revenue
90 Mass. App. Ct. 707
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Father and mother divorced in 2004; father ordered to pay $72/week child support for their daughter.
- In 2010 father was convicted of indecent assault and battery on the child and sentenced to prison (5–7 years); he was incarcerated during the modification proceeding.
- In 2012 father filed pro se for downward modification of support, citing incarceration and inability to earn income.
- At a 2014 hearing DOR appeared for the mother; judge denied modification, attributing income to father based on prior employment and declining to reduce support—seeking to preserve arrears for future reimbursement to mother.
- Judge also requested DOR waive penalties during incarceration; judge later supplemented rationale explaining denial partly because father’s criminal conduct made incarceration and job loss foreseeable.
- Father appealed; Appeals Court vacated the denial and remanded, holding the judge abused discretion by attributing income and by deviating upward without adequate, guideline-based findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution of income to incarcerated payor | Father: Present income is zero; cannot obtain work while incarcerated so guidelines’ presumptive minimum should apply | DOR/judge: Income loss was foreseeable from criminal conduct; attribute prior earnings | Court: Attribution improper—guidelines require present ability or reasonable efforts to earn; incarceration prevents reasonable efforts, so cannot attribute income |
| Deviation upward from guidelines based on nature of crime | Father: Nature of crime is not a permissible factor to justify upward deviation | DOR/judge: Equity (clean hands) and the harm to child justify denying reduction | Court: Impermissible; guidelines list permissible deviation factors and do not include crime’s nature; judge relied on an unauthorized policy judgment |
| Use of equitable clean-hands doctrine to deny statutory modification | Father: Modification relief is statutory; equitable denial inappropriate | DOR: Judge may use equity powers to deny relief to one with unclean hands | Held: Modification is statutory remedy; equity not a substitute for guidelines; tort remedies exist for abuse victims, so equity denial was improper |
| Other justifications (parenting time disparity; child special needs) | Father: No evidence of special needs; parenting-time factor inapplicable to incarceration | DOR/judge: Father has no parenting time; child likely needs therapy and mother bears costs | Held: Parenting-time basis cannot override presumptive guideline for incarcerated payor; no evidence provided of special needs or expenses to support upward deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wasson v. Wasson, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 574 (affirming abuse-of-discretion standard for support modification reviews)
- Richards v. Mason, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 568 (standard for appellate review of modification rulings)
- Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507 (statutory/guideline framework governs modification; inconsistency mandates modification)
- Flaherty v. Flaherty, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 289 (attribution of income appropriate only where earning capacity imputable through reasonable effort)
- Department of Rev. v. Foss, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 452 (requirement that deviation be supported by findings; focus on present income)
- Croak v. Bergeron, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 750 (courts may deny modification when unemployment is intentionally orchestrated)
- Leonardo v. Leonardo, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 572 (departure from guidelines impermissible when based on factors not in guidelines)
- Boulter-Hedley v. Boulter, 429 Mass. 808 (court cannot add provisions to statute or guidelines)
- Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 324 (equitable child support awards are limited and not a substitute for statutory remedies)
- Martin v. Martin, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 547 (upward deviation improper without evidence of extraordinary expenses)