Opinion ID: 2621812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: amount owed the state

Text: [¶ 16] As explained above, by operation of law, the State is the assignee of Wright to the amount of any public assistance benefits plus any Medicaid paid by the State. We have already determined that the State is entitled to reimbursement, but the State failed to prove the amount to which it is entitled. Upon remand, as part of the evidentiary hearing, the State must prove the exact amount of its assignment. [¶ 17] Thus, a two-step process is necessary. First, the district court must determine the reasonable amount of back child support owed by the appellant to his children. Second, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-6-106(g) provides: If a court orders support to be paid by an obligor, the department shall be subrogated to the debt created by the order. This subrogation interest shall apply to all orders of support including temporary spouse support orders, family maintenance and alimony orders to the extent of the amounts paid by the department in public assistance to or for the benefit of a dependent child and the amount of medical support provided by or through another division of the department or the department of health or the department of family services. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 18] Therefore, the State must prove the full amount of the back child support to which it is entitled as the subrogee of the mother. If the amount of back child support owed is less than the total amount the State paid, the State is entitled to the back child support owed, plus the amount of any Medicaid paid. If the back child support owed is greater than that paid out by the State, the State receives what it paid out, and the rest goes to the children. [¶ 19] In determining the amount owed the State, the district court accepted Wright's stipulation that no back support was owed to her by the appellant. The district court stated in its order: 3. That Ranae Wright has waived any sums due to her. 4. That any judgment herein shall accrue to the benefit of the State of Wyoming. This part of the order is erroneous on its face. Wright cannot legally waive back child support. The support is not due to her but to her children. See Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 15, 30 P.3d 542, 546 (Wyo.2001) (legal prerequisites for modification cannot be extinguished by parental stipulation to reduced payments. The law precludes parties from bargaining away the funds intended for the exclusive benefit of their children); Hurlbut v. Scarbrough, 957 P.2d 839, 842 (Wyo.1998) (because a child support obligation does not belong to the custodial parent, that parent does not have the authority to bargain it away); and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-6-106(d) ([n]o act of the obligee shall prejudice these rights of . . . the dependent child). `A mother cannot, by contract, bargain away the right of her minor child to adequate support from the father, regardless of the validity of the agreement as between the parents themselves.' Hurlbut, 957 P.2d at 842 ( quoting Miesen v. Frank, 361 Pa.Super. 204, 522 A.2d 85, 87, appeal discontinued, 516 Pa. 641, 533 A.2d 713 (1987) and Com. ex rel. Bortz v. Norris, 184 Pa.Super. 594, 135 A.2d 771, 773 (1957)). While Wright waived any sums due to her, she cannot waive sums due to her children. Accordingly, we hold that the part of the stipulation alleging forgiveness of the appellant's past child support obligation is void and unenforceable because it is against public policy. See Hurlbut, 957 P.2d at 842 and Combs v. Sherry- Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 54 (Wyo. 1993). [¶ 20] We further note that on the date of the stipulation, June 8, 2000, the amount of back child support had not been calculated. Therefore, Wright could not have known if she had received an appropriate amount of support for her children. The record indicates that the appellant had at times paid rent, bought groceries, and had given Wright money. Obviously, any amount the appellant can demonstrate he actually paid to support his children must be credited to him. Wright may also testify or present evidence that the appellant gave her money or helped with the expenses of raising the children. This presents a fact issue for determination by the district court regarding credits due to the appellant. On remand, the district court is to determine the amount of back child support owed, taking into account amounts already paid by the appellant.