Opinion ID: 2164776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recovery of past support.

Text: Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting judgment against him for $500 for support of Jason prior to trial. He says this amount represents babysitting expenses, for which plaintiff could obtain a tax deduction, and further because she could claim a dependency deduction for him on her income tax return. Nowhere in the trial court's judgment entry is there any indication this is only for babysitting expense. In this regard, it stated: [B]etween the birth of the child on September 13, 1976, and November 1, 1977 [beginning date of installment support payments], the plaintiff expended in excess of $1000 in necessary support of said child and that in connection therewith the defendant should reimburse plaintiff in the sum of $500. . . . Appellant's claim that past support may not be recovered in this action is untenable. Section 675.3, The Code, which provides that not more than two years support furnished prior to the bringing of the action may be recovered clearly contemplates that support furnished within two years could be recovered. Section 675.4, providing that other parties who have furnished support for the child may recover them from the father, clearly contemplates that these would be past support expenses. The general rule as to past support recovery is thus stated in 10 C.J.S. Bastards § 111, p. 193: Under statutes authorizing a judgment for support and maintenance, the usual practice is to make an order against defendant based on a judgment which shall include a reasonable allowance for the past, as well as the future, maintenance of the child, and, unless the statute otherwise prescribes, all of the elements included in the statute for the benefit of the mother should be comprised in a single order. (Emphasis added.) Here, the action was commenced well within the two years of Jason's birth; his past support may therefore be recovered in this action; and that award by the court was also supported by substantial evidence.