Opinion ID: 1851218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction to Modify the Support Award

Text: Courts which award periodic child support retain the authority to modify the amount to be paid when there has been a showing that the circumstances of the parties have materially changed. NDCC § 14-17-17; Clutter v. McIntosh, 484 N.W.2d 846 (N.D.1992); Sweeney v. Hoff, 478 N.W.2d 9 (N.D.1991). With regard to Bradley's contention that the court does not have jurisdiction to modify the amount of child support which he agreed to in the stipulation, it is settled that a court has continuing jurisdiction to modify child support even if the amount is set by stipulation. Spilovoy v. Spilovoy, 488 N.W.2d 873 (N.D.1992); Puklich v. Puklich, 463 N.W.2d 651 (N.D.1990); McDonough v. McDonough, 458 N.W.2d 344 (N.D.Ct.App.1990); Tiokasin v. Haas, 370 N.W.2d 559 (N.D.1985); Malaterre v. Malaterre, 293 N.W.2d 139 (N.D.1980); see also Ebertz v. Ebertz, 338 N.W.2d 651 (N.D.1983) [stipulation not binding as pertaining to child custody]. We take a dim view of agreements purporting to sign away the rights of a child in support settingsnot from a contractual background, but from a public policy one. McDonough, supra ; Tiokasin, supra . Bradley contends that section 14-17-17, NDCC, [1] of North Dakota's adaptation of the Uniform Parentage Actthe provision allowing modification of child support ordersapplies only to paternity actions that are formally tried and in which the court finds a duty to support. Bradley admitted paternity in a compromised settlement agreement which was stipulated to and which the court used as the basis for its original judgment. Because the case was not formally tried, Bradley contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the support judgment. We find nothing in the express wording of section 14-17-17, NDCC, which requires a formal determination of paternity in order that the judgment be determinative for all purposes, nor do we find any justification for an implication of formality. Since we have a policy to encourage settlements and to discourage litigation, Hastings Pork v. Johanneson, 335 N.W.2d 802 (N.D.1983), requiring, as Bradley suggests, a formal proceeding as the basis of all judgments and orders would be contrary to this policy. To infer that judgment or order as used in the statute requires a formal determination would make stipulations and compromise agreements not only toothless, but irrelevant. We recognize the logic of Bradley's argument that he stipulated to paternity because the stipulation correspondingly limited his financial obligation for child support and that once the limitation on his financial obligation is removed he should, in fairness, equity and application of principles of contract law, be freed from his admission to paternity. Those views are encompassed in a dissenting opinion in Gerhardt v. Estate of Moore, 150 Wis.2d 563, 441 N.W.2d 734 (1989). The rationale in the dissent is distinguishable from this case. In Gerhardt, the putative father made a lump-sum payment, relying on a provision in Wisconsin law similar to section 14-17-17, NDCC, which provides that a judgment for payment of a lump sum or purchase of an annuity may specify that the judgment may not be modified or revoked. This statute was later found unconstitutional [2] but the majority opinion refused to disturb the admission of paternity, notwithstanding the fact child support would be increased. Here, Bradley did not rely on a specific statute. Section 14-17-17(2), NDCC, lists two circumstances under which a court cannot modify a support obligation, i.e., where the putative father makes a lump-sum payment or purchases an annuity. By forbidding modification in the instance where the judgment provides for lump-sum payment or purchase of an annuity, the statute necessarily envisions modification of all other awards, including those previously stipulated. It is a general principle of statutory interpretation that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. See, e.g., In Re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, 183 N.W.2d 520 (N.D.1971). Unlike the father (Moore) in Gerhardt, Bradley could not have relied on this section for his position that the support judgment could not be modified. Finally, unlike Gerhardt in which no blood tests were apparently taken, here blood tests were taken which indicated Bradley was the likely father. Although the stipulation avoided a contested trial of the issue of Bradley's parenthood, we are aware that the blood test results may have been part of the reason Bradley entered into the stipulation. Bradley also argues that a decision to permit modification of the support payments in the stipulated settlement, but at the same time deny the putative father the right to contest paternity, will discourage the settlement of law suits. We agree that settlement of disputes should be encouraged whenever possible and that the judicial process should be conducted to accomplish this purpose. Aaker v. Aaker, 338 N.W.2d 645 (N.D.1983). We do not intend to depart from that general principle. But, as the Wisconsin court in Gerhardt observed in striking down the statute which prohibited modifications of judgments which ordered lump-sum payments or the purchase of an annuity to encourage settlement of paternity cases: We are unpersuaded that the statutory scheme is substantially related to its asserted state interests. To begin with, it is difficult to see how the interest in promoting settlements justifies a total waiver of future child support regardless of the child's future needs or the father's ability to pay. As a practical matter, when an admission of paternity was obtained in the manner presented here, the benefits to the child were often so minimal that the admission of paternity had almost no value to anyone except to the county which had its medical costs covered. Somewhat ironically, while the child lost all right to require the father to provide additional support, the unmarried father's rights remained fully protected after such an agreement. Presumably, the father could subsequently assert visitation and even seek support from the mother who waived future child support in exchange for an admission of paternity. Furthermore, the risk of losing the paternity issue at trial and burdening the state's welfare system is undercut by the countervailing state interest in the continued adequacy of support for the child. Contrary to the estate's perception, denying nonmarital children the ability to obtain additional child support from their fathers regardless of future circumstances could itself result in an increased burden on the state welfare system. Similarly, the interest in finality is undercut by the fact that Krueger would not be barred from seeking additional support had the State and her mother never brought the original suit, or if the settlement and judgment in that suit had provided for periodic payments rather than a lump-sum. The elimination of the statutory bar in 1981 also suggests that the interest in finality was viewed as less than overwhelming by the legislature. Gerhardt, supra, at 738-739. Due to the nature of domestic relations, we do not analyze transactions and compromises between the parties in a cold contractual framepublic policy plays a large role in determining the factors of which parties may contract in domestic relations settings. For instance, in discussing the statutory predecessor of the Uniform Parentage Act, this Court observed that the object of a paternity proceeding was not to punish the father, but to ensure a provision for the maintenance and education of the child. State v. Southall, 50 N.D. 723, 197 N.W. 866 (N.D.1924). The prefatory note to the Uniform Parentage Act likewise observes that in providing substantive legal equality for all children regardless of the marital status of their parents, ... this Act will fulfill an important social need in terms of improving the states' systems of support enforcement. Uniform Parentage Act Prefatory Note, 9B U.L.A. 289 (1973). Section 14-17-14, NDCC, states that [t]he judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of the parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes. [Emphasis added]. The need for finality of paternity dispositions is evident. This need for finality is not advanced were we, as Bradley urges, to find another exception to the plain wording of section 14-17-17, NDCC, which would negate a declaration of paternity in order to forbid a support modification. We determine that the trial court did not err in concluding it had jurisdiction to modify a child support award established on the basis of a compromised settlement.