Opinion ID: 6357660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority to Modify Child Support Order

Text: [¶ 10] Van Overbeke contends that the court erred by modifying the existing child support order because the issue was not raised by either party. His argument is best characterized as a contention that the court lacked the legal authority to modify the 2010 child support order because his motion to modify primary residence and parental rights did not bring the proceeding within the scope of 19-A M.R.S. § 2009 (2017). We review de novo whether a court has legal authority to take the action it has taken. Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc. , 2008 ME 145 , ¶ 64, 956 A.2d 110 . [¶ 11] Child support is intended to foster and protect the best interest of a child. See 19-A M.R.S. §§ 1653(1), (3), (8), 2007(3) (2017) ; Court v. Kiesman , 2004 ME 72 , ¶ 9, 850 A.2d 330 (The primary purpose of child support ordered by a court or administrative agency is to protect the best interests and welfare of the benefiting child.). Title 19-A M.R.S. § 2009 provides the procedure by which parties can seek modification of existing child support orders. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(10)(A) (2017) (Modification and termination of child support orders are governed by section 2009.). Our cases interpreting this provision have long held that, so long as a motion to modify is properly before the court, if the motion itself-or the opposing party's response to that motion-puts the parties on notice that the amount of child support may change, the court has authority to modify the child support order to serve the child's best interest. See Ames v. Ames , 2003 ME 60 , ¶ 30, 822 A.2d 1201 ([O]nce an issue is generated by a pending motion, it is within the court's authority to fashion an award to serve the children's best interest. (quotation marks omitted) ); Longo v. Goodwin , 2001 ME 153 , ¶ 11, 783 A.2d 159 (The policy behind [ 19-A M.R.S. § 2009 ] is to require that the party who may be adversely affected by a change in the child support amount be put on notice that the amount may change .... (emphases added) ); see also Hinkley v. Hinkley , 2000 ME 64 , ¶ 9, 749 A.2d 752 (In this case, where the issue of medical decision-making was generated by a pending motion and the parties' presentations to the court, the court was authorized to fashion an award to serve the children's best interest ....). [¶ 12] We addressed a similar argument to that raised by Van Overbeke in Ames , 2003 ME 60 , ¶¶ 26-30, 822 A.2d 1201 . In that case, the father filed motions for contempt, to enforce contact provisions, and to decrease his child support obligation. Id. ¶ 3. The mother never specifically moved to modify child support but, in her response to the father's motion, she stated that the father's higher income justified an increase in his support obligation. Id. ¶ 9. When it denied the father's motions, the trial court nonetheless increased the father's child support obligation. Id. ¶ 10. On  appeal, the father argued that because the mother never moved to modify child support, the trial court erred when it increased his support obligation. Id. ¶¶ 11-12, 26. We explained that, [a]ccording to M.R. Civ. P. 8(f), we must construe all pleadings so as to do substantial justice and construe[d] [the mother's] response as properly notifying [the father] of the potential adverse effect of a change in support. Id. ¶ 30 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, we held that the issue of increasing [the father's] child support obligation ... was properly before the court. Id. [¶ 13] Here, Van Overbeke's motion to modify, which was properly before the court, sought to change parental rights and responsibilities and the child's primary residence. In his motion, Van Overbeke stated that he was seeking the [s]ame child support agreement, just opposite. Petersen responded to Van Overbeke's motion by filling out and filing with the court several forms related to family matters. On one of the forms Petersen filed, she ask[ed] the court to review the child support order and that Paul Van Overbeke be ordered to pay an appropriate amount for the care of [the child]. Construing-as we must-Petersen's response to do substantial justice, M.R. Civ. P. 8(f) ; see Ames , 2003 ME 60 , ¶ 30, 822 A.2d 1201 , we conclude that Petersen raised the issue of child support in response to Van Overbeke's motion. [¶ 14] We note also that there were two orders that put Van Overbeke on notice of the potential adverse effect of a change in support. Ames , 2003 ME 60 , ¶ 30, 822 A.2d 1201 . First, in the July 24, 2017, case management order-issued just over a month after Van Overbeke filed his motion to modify-the court (Waterville, Ham-Thompson, M. ) clearly identified child support as an unresolved issue still in dispute. Second, in the pretrial/status conference order issued after mediation and dated September 6, 2017, the court (Belfast, Martin, M. ) required the parties to file their 2016 W-2 forms and most recent paychecks so that those documents could be attached to their child support affidavits. In addition, the court confirmed-during the hearing itself-that Petersen was requesting child support. [¶ 15] Here, Petersen had sufficiently raised the issue of child support in response to Van Overbeke's motion to modify such that he had sufficient notice that his child support obligation may change. See Longo , 2001 ME 153 , ¶ 11, 783 A.2d 159 . The court therefore had the authority to modify the child support order in accordance with section 2009. See Ames , 2003 ME 60 , ¶ 30, 822 A.2d 1201 .