Opinion ID: 1943941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Real, Substantial and Unanticipated Change of Circumstances

Text: Father first argues that the court had no jurisdiction to modify the award. According to father, because Justin's needs were apparent from an early age, the fact that he required special schooling was not a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances. [1] 15 V.S.A. § 660(a) provides, in pertinent part: On motion of either parent . . . and upon a showing of a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, the court may annul, vary or modify a child support order, whether or not the order is based upon a stipulation or agreement. 15 V.S.A. § 660(b) provides, in pertinent part: A child support order . . . [that] varies more than ten percent from the amounts required to be paid under the support guideline, shall be considered a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances. Under § 660(b), because the child support order mother sought to modify deviated from the guidelines by more than ten percent, the court had jurisdiction to modify the order. See Grimes v. Grimes, 159 Vt. 399, 406, 621 A.2d 211, 214 (1992) (declining to reach issue of whether decrease in father's income was real, substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances under § 660(a), citing § 660(b), and stating: Because it is undisputed that the 1987 order set the child support obligation more than 10% above the guideline amount, the court did not err in modifying the order.).