State Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Child Support Modification in Case Handled by CLA

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

 

Contact Ruthanne Withers, Esq.at (508)425-2815 or rwithers@cla-ma.org

Tina Paradiso, Esq. (508)425-2833 or tparadiso@cla-ma.org

 

 

The state’s highest court has issued a decision clarifying the correct standard that judges should use when deciding requests for modifications of child support orders. The case, Morales v. Morales, was a victory for Community Legal Aid’s client, Marlene Morales.

 

When Ms. Morales’s ex-husband got a promotion at work with a salary increase and more overtime, Community Legal Aid (CLA) asked the Worcester Probate & Family Court to  modify the child support order that it had issued during the divorce. The judge denied the request, finding that there had been no “material and substantial change in circumstances” since the entry of the prior order to warrant its modification.  The judge also stated that she did not include overtime income in her child support calculations.

 

CLA Attorney Ruthanne Withers took the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, arguing that the correct statutory standard that judges should use in deciding on modifications of child support is whether there is an “inconsistency” between the prior order and the order that would result from applying the Child Support Guidelines.  The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision.

 

Because of the significance of the case to low- and moderate-income recipients and payors of child support, CLA applied for relief from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), where Attorney Withers argued the case again. The SJC agreed with the position put forward by CLA and “friend of the Court” briefs, that the standard for modifying a child support order is whether there is an inconsistency between the previous order and the order that would result from application of the Child Support Guidelines.  In Ms. Morales’s case, her child support order was much lower than what the Child Support Guidelines amount would be  using her ex-husband’s increased income.