Child Support Cases of Interest

The Mississippi Appellate Court has had three (3) recent child support cases of interest.

(1)   Williams v. DHS, NO. 2011-CA-01742-COA (June 18, 2013).  This is a case dealing with overtime pay.  The case reaffirmed that in Mississippi it is permissible to use overtime as part of the calculation of child support as long as the amounts are consistent.  This is generally true of bonuses, commissions, and other things.  This is why it is important at times to have someone from client’s work to testify in court regarding their pay many times.

 

(2)    Stasny v. Wages, ( June 25, 2013).  This case dealt this the circumstances where the relationship a parent has with a child is so strained that it is justifiable to have child support terminated.  Most people are not even aware there are cases where child support can be terminated on this basis.   Lots of times, the child is suffering from parental alienation syndrome (PAS) from actions by the other parent to make the child do certain things to the other parent.  That is the subject of a whole other potential post.  This is one of the first cases I can remember in a while that goes through and details the law in this area very well. 

(3)    Frazier v. Frazier, June 25, 2013.  This case reaffirmed that in Mississippi you cannot get retroactive reduction of child support.  Any basis for retroactive reduction of child support is going to have to come from the legislature.  This is one area the state legislature needs to look at.  With the busy trial dockets, it can take months for a case to go to trial and many chancellors do not like to grant temporary relief on these issues.  As such, a party could not be in contempt when they seek reduction, but due to the burdens in proving inability to pay, a party may be in contempt by the time the case comes to trial.  Practice tip:  Ask the court for temporary relief and get a denial of the same on the record if the Court is not going to grant it.  What has worked well is to have the child support lowered on a temporary basis and have put in the order that if the burden of proof is not met at trial to prove a reduction, the party will owe the back amount plus interest at 8%.