576 P.3d 564
Wash. Ct. App.2025Background
- Samantha Snodderly and Bradley Shockey share a child, D.S., and have been subject to an administrative order of child support since 2011, modified by an agreed settlement in 2022.
- The 2022 agreed settlement with the Division of Child Support (DCS) outlined child support to continue until D.S. turned 18 or graduated from high school (but not past age 19), whichever was later.
- In early 2024, after D.S. turned 18 but while he was still in high school, Snodderly petitioned for post-secondary (i.e., after age 18) child support.
- The trial court denied the petition, reasoning it lacked authority as D.S. was "emancipated" (over age 18) and the prior order was not a qualifying "written agreement."
- Snodderly appealed, arguing that the administrative agreed settlement counted as a written agreement under RCW 26.09.170(3), preserving her right to seek continued support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the administrative agreed settlement qualifies as a "written agreement" for extended child support under RCW 26.09.170(3) | The agreed settlement is a valid written agreement extending support beyond age 18 if conditions are met. | No record response; trial court reasoned only a court order, not admin order, qualifies. | Yes; an administrative agreed settlement constitutes a written agreement under RCW 26.09.170(3). |
| Whether D.S. was "emancipated" for child support purposes at age 18 while still in high school | D.S. was still dependent under the agreement; not emancipated. | No response; trial court said turning 18 = emancipation. | No; child not emancipated if agreement extends support while dependent and under age 19. |
| Authority of trial court to order post-secondary support in these circumstances | The court retained authority since petition was filed before the support obligation terminated. | Trial court: no authority because no prior court order and D.S. was 18. | Court had authority because administrative order remained effective. |
| Procedural fairness in refusal to extend post-secondary support | The lower court's interpretation unduly discriminates against families with administrative orders versus court decrees. | No articulated position. | Interpretation rejected; RCW 26.09.170(3) applies equally to written agreements and court decrees. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Gimlett, 95 Wn.2d 699 (Wash. 1981) (post-secondary support must be expressly provided for in relevant decree or agreement)
- Balch v. Balch, 75 Wn. App. 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (child support obligation based on dependency, not age of minority)
- In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (Wash. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard in child support modifications)