Once a child turns eighteen, the Texas Family Code provides that child-support payments can continue as long as the child is still enrolled in school pursuing a high-school diploma. However, at what point is a child no longer considered to be pursuing a high-school diploma for child-support purposes? Recently, one Texas father found out. Continue Reading ›
A Texas court may order child support beyond a child’s 18th birthday if the child is still in high school, whether a public school, a private school, or course that provide joint high school and junior college credits. The child must comply with the minimum attendance requirements in the Education Code or the private school’s minimum attendance requirements. Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 154.002. A mother challenged the termination of child support for her son after his 18th birthday in a recent Texas custody case.
The divorce decree ordered the father to pay monthly child support until one of the listed events occurred. Child support would continue if he was in compliance with the requirements in Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 154.002.
The father petitioned to terminate child support in September 2018, following the son’s 18th birthday in April. The mother claimed the son was enrolled in an accredited secondary school. She then filed a petition for continuation and increase of child support and alleged her son was enrolled full-time in a private secondary school.
When a parent seeks to modify a Texas child support order on the basis of a material and substantial change in financial circumstances, they must prove that such a change occurred. Doing so requires evidence of the parties’ current income and resources, but it also requires evidence of their income and resources at the time of the previous order.
In a recent case, a father challenged a court’s denial of his petition for modification. The parents divorced in 2012 and signed an Agreed Final Decree of divorce. The mother was given the exclusive right to designate their primary residence, but the possession schedule gave each parent possession 50% of the time.
Under the decree, the father was required to pay $1,047.95 in child support each month. The decree stated it was in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Family Code, based on the father’s monthly net resources of $4,191.81.
If a parent fails to pay court-ordered child support in Texas, the obligee may pursue a number of cumulative remedies. The obligee may seek a contempt of court order, a cumulative money judgment, a child support lien against certain property, a judicial writ of withholding, and an administrative writ of withholding. The court keeps jurisdiction to confirm the amount of arrearages and render a cumulative money judgment for a motion for enforcement that is filed within 10 years of termination of the obligation or the child reaching adult hood. Tex. Fam. Code §157.005.
In a recent case, the appeals court allowed an adult to pursue the child support her father owed after her mother’s death. The father was ordered to pay $250 per month in child support at the time of the divorce in 1980, but did not pay. The mother initiated an enforcement action in 2011, but it was never heard and she died in 2016.
In 2017, the daughter, then 41 years old, served a notice of application for judicial writ of withholding on her father. The father moved to stay the issuance of the income withholding order. The daughter argued the father had failed to timely contest the notice so the arrearages sworn to in the notice had been determined as a matter of law.
A Texas custody case can become complicated when a person learns he is the biological father of a child years after the child’s birth. Although a potential father of a child with a presumed father generally must file for adjudication of paternity prior to the child’s fourth birthday, in some cases, a delay may be excused. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.607. In a suit adjudicating parentage, the court may order retroactive child support based on the child support guidelines if the parent has not been previously ordered to pay child support and was not party to a suit where support was ordered. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.009.
In a recent case, a biological father challenged an order requiring him to pay retroactive child support and granting custody to the mother’s ex-husband. The mother was not sure who the father was, but married during her pregnancy. The mother and her husband also had a child together. The husband was the presumptive father and was adjudicated the father of both children when he and the mother divorced. The husband was named managing conservator with the right to establish the primary residence for both children.
The mother had told the biological father about the pregnancy when she realized she may be pregnant, and he acknowledged he was aware he could be the father from that time. He went to the hospital the day the child was born. He said the mother told him he was not the father and he did not pursue paternity at that time. The mother told him he may be the father when the child was four years old and a paternity test confirmed that he was the probable father.
Texas family law was written before marriage between same-sex partners was recognized. Many of the statutes are written in gendered terms that do not contemplate the possibility of marriage between same-sex partners or parents who are the same sex. A recent case considered whether the female spouse of a child’s biological and birth mother was a parent under Texas law.
The appellant had a child at the time of the marriage and the parties discussed having a child together. A friend of the parties agreed to be their sperm donor. They agreed the appellee would carry the child. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the appellant performed the insemination in the parties’ apartment. The appellant accompanied the appellee to most of her doctor’s appointments. She was at the hospital when the baby was born and took family leave to be with the baby. When the parties divorced, the trial court found the appellant was also a parent to the child and ordered her to pay child support. She appealed.
The appellant argued “parents” are defined as a mother and father in the Texas Family Code. The appellee argued that same-sex marriage and related benefits are recognized in the United States pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court decisions and Texas law must be read in light of those decisions.
In calculating child support, a Texas court must consider each parent’s net resources. The Texas Family Code defines which resources are to be included, and which types of resources are excluded from consideration. In a recent case, a wife challenged an order to pay child support and medical support, partly because the court had improperly considered certain resources.
The husband testified that he lacked health insurance and did not have access to private insurance. Although the wife did not appear at the trial, the husband was previously the trustee of her supplemental social security income (SSI) and testified that he believed that she still received $750 per month. There was no other evidence of her income or ability to work.
The trial court designated the husband as the sole managing conservator of the children and ordered the wife to pay child and medical support. The court calculated the payment based on her SSI.
The Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is responsible for certain child support services, including collecting and enforcing Texas child support orders. Recipients of certain public assistance programs may automatically qualify for the OAG’s child support services, but others have to apply for the services. The OAG has a variety of ways to enforce child support, including filing liens, issuing writs of withholdings to the parent’s employer, suspending driver’s licenses, and intercepting tax refunds or other money from state or federal sources.
In a recent case, a father challenged the OAG’s enforcement actions against him. The father was ordered to pay child support beginning in December 1996. The court also issued an Order Enforcing Child Support Obligation in October 1999, including a cumulative money judgment for $15,000 plus interest against the father in favor of the Attorney General.
In 2015, the OAG sent a notice of child support lien to the father’s bank and issued administrative writs of withholding to his employers. The OAG also filed a petition with the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the father’s driver’s license suspension.
The Texas Family Code provides guidelines to assist courts in calculating child support that are based on a percentage of the parent’s net monthly resources. The statute sets forth what types of income are included and excluded from the parent’s net monthly resources. In many families, it is fairly straight-forward to determine what is included in the calculation. If a parent’s only income is from the wage or salary he or she earns from employment, it is relatively simple to identify the net monthly resources. Some families, however, have more complicated financial circumstances making it less clear what should be included.
In a recent case, a father appealed the inclusion of an annuity payment in his net monthly resources for purposes of the child support calculation. Prior to the marriage, the father settled a claim for a work-related accident with his employer. As a result of the settlement, the father receives $6,970 per month from an annuity. The payments will continue until either the the father’s death or June 1, 2044.
The couple had one child during the marriage. The mother filed for divorce less than a year after the couple was married. Although the couple reached agreement on some issues, they were unable to agree on child support and medical support. The trial court found the annuity payments were “resources” under Texas Family Code 154.062 and included them in the father’s resources when calculating the child and medical support payments.
Sometimes, a parent may face significant changes in his or her financial circumstances that affect the ability to pay a Texas child support obligation. If the change in the parent’s financial circumstances is both substantial and material, the court may modify the obligation.
In a recently-decided case, a father sought to modify his child support obligation after he was determined to be disabled. The original support order was entered in 2006. The court entered an agreed order in 2012, ordering the father to make payments on the support he owed and increasing his monthly obligation based on his net resources.
Soon after the 2012 order was entered, the father had a stroke. The Social Security Administration (SSA) found him to be disabled and awarded him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. He moved to modify the support order on the grounds his circumstances had materially and substantially changed.