Welsher v. Rager – Child Support – College Education
Welsher v. Rager, 127 N.C. App. 521, 491 S.E.2d 661 (N.C. 1997).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over support past the age of 18 and graduation from high school.
FACTS: W and H were divorced in 1980 and in 1985 W petitioned for a court order to recognize an agreement for support executed by W and H in 1985. The court order provided that H was to be legally responsible for support of their two sons and ordered that he pay $45 per week. H later refused to continue to make payments. At the time of refusal, the boys were 21 and 18 with the latter just having graduated from high school.
W filed the present action for arrearages. H responded by filing an Answer for Civil Suit stating that the original decree only obligated him to support the children until they were eighteen and out of high school, that he did not knowing agree to support then until 21. H’s motion to dismiss was granted. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Must a court enforcing a child support order generally apply the law of the state in which the order was issued?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A court enforcing a child support order generally must apply the law of the state in which the order was issued.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The trial judge made his decision under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) and not under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) standard. The only finding by the trial judge was that the children had reached 18. Under URESA that would have been sufficient to allow the judge not to support the order. However, under UIFSA, the court must determine enforceability by the state of origin unless an appropriate defense was raised under UIFSA guidelines. Under New York law, the age of emancipation is 21 and that must be applied in enforcing this order. The record is also devoid of any appropriate defenses raised under the UIFSA guidelines and there is no evidence that both parties consented to modification or that the issuing state lost jurisdiction because none of the parties live there any longer. As such, no court of this jurisdiction may vacate or modify this order. If H wishes to have this order modified, he must go to New York to do so. For the record, we must also hold that UFISA applies to any foreign order registered in this state after January 1, 1996. As the New York order does not supply a per child break down of the actual sums due even though one child reached majority at 21, the other child is still eligible for support. As such, the amount owed stands.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
Additional information on emancipation of minors.