Opinion ID: 2453427
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged cancellation of past-due child support payments

Text: Phyllis claims that DeJeaux was nearly $4,000 behind in child support payments when Judge Reese retired and that Judge Morse improperly cancelled DeJeaux's arrears. Phyllis appears to feel that she has a second claim of arrears as well, for a different time period: A copy of a CSSD audit of DeJeaux's child support payments is included in Phyllis's excerpt of record, and she has drawn an arrow to a balance of $3,493 in October 2007, then another arrow to a zero balance in July 2008, following an adjustment of $2,878.74 that occurred in October 2007. In her brief she refers to it as where in fact Mr. Williams' arrears were zero[ed] out. [50] As a procedural matter, a party seeking to collect past-due child support payments must first reduce the arrears to a judgment in the trial court, under AS 25.27.226. [51] Once this has occurred, the custodian may begin proceedings to enforce that judgment. The Child Support Enforcement Division can also initiate the process of obtaining a judgment for arrears, and the original divorce decree between Phyllis and DeJeaux actually states that [a]ny issue as to Mr. Williams' arrears since the October 10, 2000 effective date of the interim Child Support Order can be dealt with by the Child Support Enforcement Division. Nothing in the record indicates that the superior court ever entered a judgment for the alleged arrears, nor that Phyllis attempted to obtain such a judgment and was denied. As there is no judgment in the superior court to appeal, the issue of arrears is not properly before this court.