Opinion ID: 2634545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Paxton's Other Arguments Lack Merit.

Text: Paxton raises several other arguments. He asserts that Gavlak dismissed child support between July 1990 and October 1996 because she waived it in the August 1996 letter she wrote to him and because she had withdrawn from CSED services during that time. He asserts that CSED may not collect the public assistance granted to him when Megan was living with him, because his liability may not exceed the amount provided for in the support order. [15] He argues that because the December 1998 arrearages statement did not include arrearages from July 1990 to January 1997, CSED is deemed to have waived this amount. He argues that CSED filed its motion in the wrong case, thereby violating his right to due process. Finally, he argues that enforcing this child support obligation would be cruel and unusual punishment. [16] These arguments are without merit. A parent may not waive past-due court-ordered child support. [17] Similarly, a custodial parent's conduct cannot amount to an estoppel or waiver altering the obligation to pay child support. This follows from the rule that parties cannot by agreement alter a noncustodial parent's obligation to pay child support without court approval. [18] Therefore, neither Gavlak's August 1996 letter to Paxton nor her withdrawal from CSED's services modified Paxton's court-ordered child support obligation. Paxton is liable for any AFDC grants that he received, although this amount may not exceed the amount he owed under the support order. [19] CSED's balance sheet takes the AFDC grants to Paxton into account, and limits his total obligation to the amount in the support order. CSED may not waive, and is not estopped from collecting, support that the obligor owes to the child, because the right to support is the child's, not CSED's. [20] CSED's failure to file its motion in the right case, if it was error, is harmless. [21] Finally, Paxton's claim of cruel and unusual punishment lacks merit, because child support is not bail, a fine, or punishment, [22] and Article I, section 12 of the Alaska Constitution only applies to criminal matters.