Question:
My divorce agreement from 1997 stipulates that support will continue until
the age of 18, unless enrolled full-time in school. When she began beauty
school in June, I resumed paying the support. I was charged with contempt
of the original order because I did not file a modification, and we went to
court over it. What the judge said was that I was not in contempt, because
I did have that agreement, but I did owe the support because she is not
self-supportive. She also indicated that I should have filed a modification
at 18. Does this make sense? I have an agreement that tells me how I need
to behave, and it says nothing about filing anything. She also ruled that
my wages be garnished even though I have not missed a payment since 1997,
stating that she saw no harm in it. My lawyer objected, to which he was
quickly silenced.
She also made it clear that being in school was irrelevant, so I basically
have no choice but to pay until 21. If I request a termination or
modification of CS based on lack of schooling, I'm just asking for more
trouble. So it seems... Does this make sense? What do the words in my
original agreement mean? No one seems to be concerned that we had a legal
document that was filed with probate court more than 5 years ago that
spelled out all of this.
Answer:
I've paid CS to age 21 for a child attending school, so I understand some of
your situation, but not the MA law. It sounds like the judge ruled the CS
could have ended at age 18, when your daughter was no longer enrolled in
school, but since you didn't file a modification to terminate the support at
that point, the CS continues. The action an NCP is required to take at the
conclusion of the stipulated support term varies from state to state, and is
also impacted by whether the payments go directly to the CP or through the
state. It sounds like you paid the CP directly, without state involvement,
so the burden to stop the CS payments from accruing fell onto you. (If the
state had been involved they might have done it for you.)
What is odd is the way the MA law is written to say the child must be
"enrolled". My state requires the student to attend school (college or post
secondary trade school) at least 1/2 time, get at least a "C" average, and
continually notify the NCP of their education progress and plans. Breaks
for summer vacation are not considered, but breaks in enrollment are cause
to shut off CS accruals. You need to understand what MA law says about
termination of CS.
At this point, I'd stay in close contact with your daughter, and as soon as
she no longer plans to "enroll" beyond the current level of schooling, file
a motion to modify BEFORE the current enrollment period terminates detailing
the last day of her enrollment. If the garnishment is now paid through the
state that can be an advantage. If the CS is paid through the state,
inquire about how they can help you when you anticipate the child will no
longer qualify. Also check your state statutes on what steps you need to
take to terminate CS when the child no longer qualifies.
FYI - the law in my state allows for the NCP to file an affidavit with the
Child Support Program swearing all CS has been paid. The CS Accounting Unit
checks their records, and files a certification and full Satisfaction of
Judgment with the Clerks of the Court on behalf of the NCP. No motions, no
hearing, just an affidavit which you can create using one of the legal
templates in MS Word. That's why you need to check what the proper
procedure is in MA for your circumstance. I paid a $50 consulting fee to an
attorney to help me understand the law and what to do and then did the rest
on my own.
