Opinion ID: 2631736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Support Beyond Age 18

Text: [¶16] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-313 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 20-2-313. Cessation of child support. (a) An on-going child support obligation terminates when the: (i) Parents marry or remarry each other; (ii) Child dies; (iii) Child is legally emancipated; or (iv) Child attains the age of majority. (b) After the remarriage of the parents to each other, the court may eliminate all child support arrearage existing between the parents except those assigned to the state of Wyoming. [¶17] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-204(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2005) (emphasis added) provides: (a) Any person legally responsible for the support of a child who abandons, deserts, neglects or unjustifiably fails to support the child is liable for support of the child. It is no defense that the child was not or is not in destitute circumstances. For purposes of this section, a parent's legal obligation for the support of his or her children, whether natural or adopted, continues past the age of majority in cases where the children are: (i) Mentally or physically disabled and thereby incapable of self support; or (ii) Repealed by Laws 2000, ch. 1, § 2. (iii) Between the age of majority and twenty (20) years and attending high school or an equivalent program as full-time participants. [¶18] With respect to this issue, the original, stipulated Decree of Divorce provided: Such support shall continue until each child ... becomes self-supporting, marries or becomes 18 years of age, whichever event shall first occur. [¶19] There is no indication in the record that the parties were aware of their son's learning disability at the time that the decree was agreed to and entered. Although, as we have noted above, agreements with respect to child support are favored, we have also held that [a] child's right to adequate support cannot be bargained away by a contract between the parents regardless of the validity of the agreement between the parents themselves. Kimble v. Ellis, 2004 WY 161, ¶ 8, 101 P.3d 950, 953 (Wyo. 2004). [¶20] For more than a decade, these parties were able to resolve their differences by stipulation, but were unable to do so in this case. It appears from the record extant that the stipulations were largely driven by Father's needs and Mother's acquiescence. In this instance it appears that Father was unable to find common ground with his former wife. Our conclusion is driven in large part by the precise circumstances presented in this case, and we hold that the parties' original agreement that child support should terminate when James reached the age of 18 (i.e., on October 17, 2005) should govern here. The district court chose to terminate child support as of August 31, 2005. The termination date set by the district court is erroneous. However, because the error is de minimus, we will affirm the district court's order as entered. See Parkhurst v. Boykin, 2004 WY 90, ¶ 26, 94 P.3d 450, 462 (Wyo. 2004); W.R.A.P. 9.04. [2]