Opinion ID: 1698391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is a defendant released from an obligation to pay past due child support during a period he mistakenly believes his children were adopted?

Text: The chancellor erred in his amended judgment when he relieved Rains for any child support obligations prior to September 1, 1987, because Plaintiff had led him [Rains] to believe that the above referenced children were adopted by the Plaintiff and her present husband. In Hailey v. Holden, 457 So.2d 947 (Miss. 1984), this Court was faced with a similar question. Mrs. Hailey had secured a consent to adopt from her former husband, Mr. Holden. The adoption failed. There was disputed testimony as to whether Holden was notified of the adoption's falling through. Hailey filed a petition seeking past due child support. The chancellor found that Hailey was equitably estopped from her claim to the past due child support based upon Holden's reliance on the representation that this child was adopted by Hailey's present husband. Id. at 949. This Court reversed the chancery court in its finding that Hailey was not entitled to a judgment for vested child support payments. We held that equitable estoppel did not terminate her right to support from and after her affirmative action in securing a consent to adoption from her ex-husband until the date of her notification to him that the adoption failed. Id. at 951. Rains provides no answer to this allegation. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record that supports Rains' erroneous belief that his children had been adopted. Unlike Hailey, there is no agreement, or signed consent to adopt form. The child support owed vested at the time it was owed and as stated in Hailey, this Court is without authority to reduce the amounts of accrued child support as they constitute a civil liability. Id. at 951 (citing Cunliffe v. Swartzfager, 437 So.2d 43 (Miss. 1983)).