ILNews

Judges disagree on retroactive support issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a matter of first impression, a panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges couldn't agree on whether an initial support order can be retroactive to a date preceding the filing of a petition for resolution. The judges disagreed as to whether a court has the authority to reach into an intact marriage and order a party to pay child support to the other.

In In re the marriage of Raymond Boone v. Tammy Boone, No. 45A03-0906-CV-243, the majority concluded Indiana courts don't have the authority to order a parent to pay some form of child support during a time when the parties' marriage was still intact in the eyes of the law. Judges Ezra Friedlander and Cale Bradford interpreted the silence in the Indiana Child Support guidelines prohibiting retroactive payment of child support in a case like this to mean the Indiana legislature didn't intend for retroactive child support predating the filing of a dissolution decree because the legislature had demonstrated the ability to authorize retroactive child support in other areas.

Judge Edward Najam, however, interpreted the silence to mean nothing prohibits the ordering of payment of the retroactive child support.

"Given the robust approach our legislature has taken to ensure that all children are supported adequately by their parents until the age of majority, I cannot imagine that the legislature intended for married parents to be granted a full reprieve from their child support obligations simply because they are married," he wrote.

Retroactive modification of child support is prohibited except where explicitly authorized and can relate back in a time only to the filing of the request for it, except in paternity actions, wrote Judge Friedlander. In dissolution actions, the courts get involved when the petition is filed and prior to this it has no jurisdiction to issue orders pertaining to matters involving children except in neglect or abuse cases.

But Judge Najam countered that courts routinely delve into the facts and circumstances of a marriage as they existed prior to filing for dissolution. "Intact marriage" isn't defined in the law and it means uninjured. But the Boone marriage wasn't intact as they were living apart for several years, and Raymond stopped paying non-court-ordered child support before he filed for dissolution, wrote Judge Najam.

The majority ruling won't immunize deadbeat parents, as Judge Najam supposes, wrote Judge Friedlander.

"To the contrary, our holding in no way diminishes or abrogates the common-law duty of support, nor does it diminish the means by which the State or custodial parents may compel a recalcitrant or neglectful parent to fulfill that duty," he wrote. "Rather, we merely decline to add a means of imposing a support arrearage, for that is exactly what the rule proposed and embraced by the dissent would accomplish."

The majority reversed the portion of the Boones' dissolution order that required Raymond pay child support retroactive to the date the dissolution was filed. The case was remanded with instructions to modify the support order consistent with the opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Response
    The deadbeat lived in Oletha, Kansas and the case was filed in Indiana because I live there. We both previously lived in Illinois.
  • Maybe
    So did the deadbeat llive in Indiana or Illinois or vice versa Tammy...meaning did you live in Illinois and now Indiana? I may have some lawyers you may be able to call, depends on if your in Illinois or Indiana now?
    • Response
      I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

    2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

    3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    ADVERTISEMENT