P.O. v. J.S.
393 P.3d 986
Haw.2017Background
- Child born 2007; parents entered multiple agreements: 2008 written stipulation setting support at $4,870; 2010 stipulation set support at $8,600 plus savings; 2011 oral agreement (not filed) reduced support to $3,600 (later treated as $3,500).
- Father lost employment in 2010, depleted savings by 2012, reduced/ceased payments in late 2012–2013; Father filed Motion for Relief (Aug. 19, 2013) seeking recalculation based on current incomes.
- Family Court trial (2014) found a valid February 2011 oral agreement to set support at $3,500, found Father lacked credibility on a later alleged 2012 reduction, denied modification for lack of material change, and set arrears at $64,490 through Jan. 2015.
- ICA affirmed the denial of modification (applying a material-change standard), and concluded the Family Court could decline to use the Guidelines because of an "exceptional circumstance" (the 2011 agreement); ICA affirmed the arrears award.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether a parent may obtain review once every three years without showing changed circumstances, and (2) whether the Family Court must use the Hawai‘i Child Support Guidelines when recalculating/modifying support.
Issues
| Issue | JS's Argument | PO's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to review child support without showing change | JS: HRS §576D-7(e) permits review/adjustment once every 3 years without proof of changed circumstances | PO: Family Court and ICA applied material-change standard based on prior caselaw/agreements | Court: Parent entitled to review not more than once every 3 years without showing a change; 2010 stipulation (filed) governed and JS’s 2013 motion was a timely review request. |
| Use of Hawai‘i Child Support Guidelines | JS: Court must calculate support using Guidelines before any deviation | PO: Family Court’s reliance on the parties’ 2011 agreement/exceptional circumstances justified not using Guidelines | Court: Family Court erred—statutes require use of Guidelines when establishing/modifying support; any deviation requires first computing guideline amount and making findings. |
| Exceptional circumstances exception | JS: Even if deviation sought, court must compute guideline number first and then justify departure | PO: Existence of 2011 agreement was an exceptional circumstance excusing application of Guidelines | Court: "Exceptional circumstances" do not excuse initial use of the Guidelines; deviation allowed only after guideline computation and specific findings. |
| Child support arrears calculation | JS: Challenged $3,500 effective date and arrears amount given failure to use Guidelines | PO: Maintained Family Court’s findings and arrears calculation | Court: Affirmed arrears ($64,490) because Family Court’s factual finding that parties agreed to $3,500 in Feb. 2011 was supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 3 Haw. App. 501 (ICA 1982) (articulated material-and-substantial-change standard for support modification)
- Mack v. Mack, 7 Haw. App. 171 (Haw. App. 1988) (family court must apply Guidelines rather than decline them without justification)
- Gordon v. Gordon, [citation="135 Hawai'i 340"] (Haw. 2015) (insufficient factual findings frustrate meaningful appellate review)
- Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, [citation="98 Hawai'i 58"] (Haw. App. 2001) (statutory framework for paternity actions and use of Guidelines)
- Nabarrete v. Nabarrete, [citation="86 Hawai'i 368"] (Haw. App. 1997) (examples of exceptional circumstances affecting deviation from Guidelines)