Opinion ID: 2603444
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District court's modification of future child support.

Text: The district court concluded that, based upon the agreement of the parties waiving arrearages and modifying future child support payments downward, future support payments would be thereby modified. The propriety of the district court's modification of future child support was not raised on appeal. We discuss it, however, to clarify future cases. This Court has stated that [t]here must be a substantial change of circumstances to warrant a modification of child support. Chavez v. Chavez, 98 N.M. 678, 679, 652 P.2d 228, 229 (1982). This Court has also stated that: Support obligations are for the benefit of the children and if the custodial parent does not have the financial ability to support the children, the support obligation should not be reduced. Barela v. Barela, 91 N.M. 686, 688, 579 P.2d 1253, 1255 (1978) (emphasis added). Further, the modification of child support obligations is strictly a matter to be determined by the courts. Britton v. Britton, 100 N.M. 424, 671 P.2d 1135 (1983). Here there are virtually no findings of fact as to whether circumstances have changed substantially to justify modification of child support, nor are there any findings of fact regarding the incomes of either parent. Also, in Spingola v. Spingola, 91 N.M. 737, 580 P.2d 958 (1978), this Court enumerated various factors that should be considered when providing for the welfare of children in divorce cases. The district court failed to consider any of these factors when it modified the future child support payments and instead relied solely on the prior agreement between the parties. Petitioner, however, never claimed an error, either on appeal or on certiorari. Therefore, the district court's judgment must stand. On appeal, the scope of review is limited to examining the record only to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the district court's ruling. The rules this Court uses in determining if there is substantial evidence to support a finding of fact are: (1) that substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) that on appeal all disputed facts are resolved in favor of the successful party, with all reasonable inferences indulged in support of a verdict, and all evidence and inferences to the contrary disregarded[;] and (3) that although contrary evidence is presented which may have supported a different verdict, the appellate court will not weigh the evidence or foreclose a finding of substantial evidence. Toltec International Inc. v. Village of Ruidoso, 95 N.M. 82, 84, 619 P.2d 186, 188 (1980). In light of these rules, we have reviewed the evidence presented and find that there was substantial evidence to support the district court's finding of waiver by petitioner. We, therefore, affirm the Court of Appeals and district court. IT IS SO ORDERED. SOSA, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, STOWERS and WALTERS, JJ., concur.