Case Title: Office of Child Support ex rel. Lewis v. Lewis

Citation: 178 Vt. 204, 2004 VT 127, 882 A.2d 1128

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Child Support ex rel. Lewis v. Lewis  (2003-354); 178 Vt. 204;
882 A.2d 1128

2004 VT 127

[Filed 23-Dec-2004]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2004 VT 127

                                No. 2003-354

  Office of Child Support                     Supreme Court
  ex rel. Melissa Lewis
                                              On Appeal from
       v.                                     Windsor Family Court

  James L. Lewis, Jr.
                                              September Term, 2004

  Amy M. Davenport, J.

  Christin L. Semprebon, Springfield, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Kimberly B. Cheney of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.     JOHNSON, J.   Father appeals from a Windsor Family Court
  order in favor of the Vermont Office of Child Support requiring him to
  reimburse the State of Iowa for public assistance paid to his estranged
  wife on behalf of the parties' children.  We reverse, holding that the
  family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim in the
  absence of an Iowa court order establishing the debt and father's repayment
  obligation in the first instance.
   
       ¶  2.     Father and mother were married in Vermont in 1990 but have
  not lived together for many years.  They have two minor children whom
  father has not seen since 1994.  Since separating years ago, mother has not
  sought child support, and neither parent filed for legal separation or
  divorce before the Vermont Office of Child Support (OCS) initiated the
  proceedings at issue here. 

       ¶  3.     OCS commenced this action in July 2002 by filing a petition
  in the Windsor Family Court.  OCS sought a judgment in favor of the State
  of Iowa in the amount of $4,126.67 for past support Iowa provided to mother
  and the children.  As authority for its petition, OCS cited two provisions
  of Vermont law.  The first provision, chapter 39 of Title 33, allows the
  family court to order a parent to reimburse Vermont's Department of
  Prevention, Transition, and Health Access (PATH) for public assistance PATH
  paid to support the parent's children.  The second provision, § 293(a) of
  Title 15, gives the family court jurisdiction over child support matters
  when married parents live separately.  OCS filed with the petition
  additional documents that originated in Iowa and were sent to OCS by the
  Iowa Child Support Recovery Unit (ICSRU).  The documents were approved for
  use in interstate support proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Interstate
  Family Support Act (UIFSA) and they indicated that Iowa had not issued a
  child support order or a judgment on the public assistance debt before
  asking for OCS's help in obtaining an order from the Vermont court.  ICSRU
  sought an order from Vermont because, as a Vermont resident, father is
  subject to the jurisdiction of Vermont courts. 
   
       ¶  4.     The family court magistrate heard OCS's request in February
  2003.  Because mother's whereabouts were unknown, she was not present for
  the hearing.  Father appeared pro se.  Counsel for OCS explained to the
  magistrate that ICSRU contacted OCS in October 2001 for assistance in
  recovering the benefits Iowa paid to mother for several months in 1999 and
  2000.  OCS acknowledged that father did not receive notice of the debt from
  Iowa before OCS filed its petition in Vermont, and it suggested that the
  court calculate the judgment according to Vermont's child support
  guidelines.  

       ¶  5.     The magistrate granted the petition.  She reasoned that
  father's duty of support arose when his children were born, and that
  authority existed to require him to repay public assistance given to his
  children during a time when he was not supporting them.  The magistrate
  created a debt based on Vermont's child support guidelines for an Iowa
  obligation that was never reduced to an administrative or court judgment. 
  Father appealed the magistrate's decision to the family court.  The family
  court upheld the decision after analyzing OCS's petition under UIFSA's
  provisions exclusively.  The court explained that father has an inherent
  duty to support his children, and reasoned that ICSRU could lawfully "seek
  reimbursement of an 'arrearage' even without prior legal procedures[]" in
  Iowa.  The court did not consider whether the statutes OCS cited in support
  of the petition gave it authority to adjudicate the Iowa debt in the first
  instance, however.  Following the court's entry of judgment, father
  appealed to this Court.

       ¶  6.      On appeal, father argues that the family court denied him
  due process by issuing the child support order without prior notice of
  Iowa's claim or an opportunity to challenge it.  We review father's claim
  de novo because it raises a question of law.  Lambert v. Beede, 2003 VT 75, 
  ¶ 9, 175 Vt.610,