PO v. JS.
ADA
| Haw. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Child born 2007; parents entered written 2008 stipulation setting Father’s support at $4,870/month and a 2010 stipulation increasing support to $8,500 plus $2,500 to savings.
- Father lost professional employment in 2010; parents made an oral 2011 agreement (not filed) reducing support to $3,500/month; Father later reduced payments and stopped paying by late 2013.
- Father filed a Motion for Relief (Aug. 19, 2013) asking the family court to recalculate support based on current incomes; family court ordered $3,500/month effective Feb. 1, 2011 and $64,490 arrears through Jan. 2015.
- Family court did not compute a Guidelines Worksheet amount or make findings as to incomes, earning capacity, or child needs; it relied on the 2011 oral agreement and the pretrial order.
- ICA affirmed the family court on modification grounds, reasoning Father failed to show a material change from the 2011 agreement and that exceptional circumstances could excuse use of the Guidelines.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) the right to seek review every three years without showing changed circumstances and (2) whether the family court was required to apply the Hawai‘i Child Support Guidelines when reviewing/modifying support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to statutory review every three years without showing changed circumstances | HRS § 576D-7(e) entitles a responsible/custodial parent to petition for review and adjustment not more than once every three years without showing changed circumstances | Family court/ICA treated the most recent oral 2011 agreement as the operative order and required proof of material change | Court held HRS § 576D-7(e) permits a review of a filed child support order once every three years without showing changed circumstances; the 2010 filed stipulation, not the unfiled 2011 oral agreement, was the operative order |
| Requirement to use Hawai‘i Child Support Guidelines when modifying support | Family court must calculate support under the Guidelines and produce a Guidelines Worksheet; deviation allowed only after calculating the Guidelines amount | Mother argued reliance on parties’ agreement and “exceptional circumstances” justified not using Guidelines | Court held family courts must use the Guidelines (including computing the Worksheet) when establishing or modifying support; may deviate only after computing Guidelines amount and finding exceptional circumstances with supporting findings |
| Relevance of “exceptional circumstances” to avoid using Guidelines | Parties’ oral agreement and circumstances justified departure from applying Guidelines | Family court and ICA treated the 2011 agreement as an exceptional circumstance excusing initial application of Guidelines | Court held exceptional circumstances permit deviation only after Guidelines calculation; they do not excuse the initial use of the Guidelines Worksheet |
| Calculation of arrears and effect of oral 2011 agreement | Father conceded the 2011 oral reduction but challenged correctness of amount absent Guidelines calculation | Mother sought arrears based on $3,500/month from Feb. 2011; family court found parties agreed to $3,500 and entered arrears judgment | Court affirmed arrears award ($64,490 through Jan. 2015) because the family court’s factual finding that the parties agreed to $3,500 is supported by substantial evidence; but vacated the monthly support determination for recalculation under the Guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 3 Haw. App. 501 (App. 1982) (pre-1997 ICA decision articulating the prior requirement that modification requests show a substantial and material change in circumstances)
- Mack v. Mack, 7 Haw. App. 171 (App. 1988) (family court error where Guidelines were not used to set support)
- Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, [citation="98 Hawai'i 58"] (App. 2001) (discussing applicability of Guidelines and statutory framework for child support)
- Gordon v. Gordon, [citation="135 Hawai'i 340"] (2015) (trial court’s failure to make adequate findings precluded meaningful appellate review)
- Kakinami v. Kakinami, [citation="127 Hawai'i 126"] (2012) (standards of review for family court findings and conclusions)