Opinion ID: 6494786
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Request for Review and Modification of Child Support Order

Text: Father first contends that Hawai'i law entitles him to a review of his monthly child support obligation once every three years without having to show a change in circumstances. Chapter 576D of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, entitled “Child Support Enforcement,” establishes the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), the Guidelines, and other matters specific to child support orders. HRS § 576D-7(e) provides the right to petition the family court for a review and modification of a child support order: The responsible or custodial parent for which child support has previously been ordered shall have a right to petition the family court or the child support enforcement agency not more than once every three years for review and adjustment of the child support order without having to show a change in circumstances. The responsible or custodial parent shall not be precluded from petitioning the family court or the child support enforcement agency for review and adjustment of the child support order more than once in any three-year period if the second or subsequent request is supported by proof of a substantial or material change of circumstances. HRS § 576D-7(e) (2006) (emphases added). Thus, the responsible or custodial party is entitled to a review and reassessment of a child support order once every three years “without having to show a change in circumstances.” Id.; see also HRS § 576E-14(d) (2006) (same in administrative child support proceedings); HRS § 580-47(e) (2006) (same following divorce proceedings). An individual who seeks review of a child support order more than once “in any three-year period” may do so provided the request is supported by proof of a substantial or material change in circumstances. 11 HRS § 576D-7(e). The right to review of a child support order not more than once every three years was included in Hawaii’s child support enforcement framework by legislative enactment in 1997. See 1997 Haw. Sess, Laws Act 293, § 28 at 664-65. This right was codified at HRS § 576D-7(e) with respect to judicial child support enforcement, HRS § 576E-14(d) regarding administrative child support enforcement, and HRS § 580-47(e) as it relates to child support orders and divorce proceedings. See supra. Thus, as a result of these 1997 amendments, an individual is entitled to receive review of an existing child support order without showing changed circumstances “not more than once every three years.” HRS § 576D-7(e); HRS § 576E-14(d); HRS § 580-47(e). In this case, the family court found that there had been no “material change of circumstances” from the parties’ oral 2011 Agreement to set support at $3,500 per month to the August 19, 2013 filing of Father’s Motion for Relief, and, as a result, it concluded that modification was riot appropriate. Likewise, the ICA in its Opinion in this case relied on Davis v. Davis, 3 Haw. App. 501, 506, 653 P.2d 1167, 1170 (1982), and determined that Father was required to show a substantial change in circumstances from the 2011 Agreement to receive review of his request for reduction in child support. PO v. JS, 138 Hawai'i 109, 122, 377 P.3d 50, 63 (App. 2016). Neither the family court nor the ICA cited or otherwise acknowledged the impact of HRS § 576D-7(e) on Father’s right to review of his monthly support payment. There are two possible rationales for the rulings of the family court and the ICA. First, the family court, like the ICA, may have relied on the ICA’s 1982 decision in Davis, which held that a request for modification of a child support order must be based on “a substantial and material change in the relevant circumstances which were before the court when it made the original order.” 12 3 Haw.App. at 505-06, 653 P.2d at 1170 (citing HRS § 580-47(c) (1976, as amended)). However, any reliance on Davis in this case would be misplaced. Davis was decided by the ICA 15 years before the 1997 legislative enactment that amended the standard for child support modification requests, see supra, and there is no indication from the ICA’s Opinion that the impact of these amendments was recognized. 13 To the extent that the fam-fly court and the ICA may have relied exclusively on Davis to reject Father’s request for child support modification and failed to consider the effect of the enactment of HRS § 576D-7(e) on this ease, each held Father to an incorrect standard with respect to review of requests for child support modification. Alternatively, the family court and the ICA may have considered that the oral 2011 Agreement to reduce monthly support to $3,500 constituted the parties’ most recent “child support order” and determined that Father’s August 19, 2013 Motion for Relief required him to show “a substantial or material change of circumstances” because the motion was a “subsequent request” for adjustment of support within “any three-year period.” HRS § 676D-7(e). 14 However, as noted, no reference was made to HRS § 576D-7(e) or its substantive principles in the family court’s rulings or in the ICA’s Opinion. In any event, Father and Mother’s oral 2011 Agreement to modify Father’s child support obligation is not relevant to an analysis of the right to review of a “child support order” under HRS § 576D-7(e). The 2011 Agreement was not memorialized in writing and filed with the family court. As such, it does not constitute a “child support order” within the meaning of HRS § 676D-7(e). See HRS § 576D-1 (2006) (defining “order of support” as “a judgment, decree, or order, whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, issued by a court or an administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, for the support and maintenance of a child”); HRS § 576E-1 (2006) (defining “support order” for purposes of administrative child support proceedings as “an obligation determined by a court or duly authorized administrative agency, for the maintenance of a dependent child”); HRS § 576B-102 (2006) (defining “child support order” for purposes of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act as a “support order” for a child, and, in turn, defining “support order” as a “judgment, decree, order, decision, or directive, whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, issued in a state or foreign country for the benefit of a child”). Accordingly, the 2010 Stipulation filed with and approved by the family court constituted the relevant “child support order” for purposes of HRS § 576D-7(e), and the family court and the ICA erred to the extent that they may have determined otherwise. As recounted, Father and Mother’s 2010 Stipulation modifying their respective support, visitation, and custody rights and obligations was filed with the family court on July 21, 2010. The record does not indicate that Father ever submitted to the family court a request for review of his child support obligation before he filed his August 19, 2013 Motion for Relief. Thus, pursuant to HRS § 576D-7(e), because the August 19, 2013 Motion for Relief sought review and adjustment of a “child support order,” which in this case was entered on July 21, 2010, Father was entitled to a review and reassessment of his monthly support payment without having to show a change in circumstances. As a result, the family court erred to the extent that it conditioned review of Father’s support obligation on his ability to show a material change in circumstances, and the ICA erred when it affirmed this ruling of the family court. PO v. JS, 138 Hawai'i at 122, 124, 377 P.3d at 63, 65.