Opinion ID: 2316989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Child Support and Alimony Award

Text: Joanne contends that child support and spousal support payments were terminated or modified repeatedly throughout this proceeding without the benefit of a hearing and in violation of our statutory requirements. We agree. An award of child support is primarily governed by § 15-5-16.2(a) which provides in relevant part that, the court shall order either or both parents owing a duty of support to a child to pay an amount based upon a formula and guidelines adopted by an administrative order of the family court. The Family Court adopted its support guidelines in October 1987, and it has revised them on occasion, by administrative order. According to the terms of the administrative order, the support guidelines worksheet is equally applicable to temporary and final orders for child support. We consistently have held that § 15-5-16.2, in conjunction with the support guidelines, requires the trial justice to review the worksheet to determine the base level of child support that the noncustodial parent is required to pay. Hogan v. Hogan, 822 A.2d 925, 927 (R.I.2003) (citing Lembo v. Lembo, 677 A.2d 414, 418 (R.I. 1996)). Only if the trial justice finds that the recommended child support order would be inequitable to the child or either parent may he or she deviate from the calculated amount. Id.; see also 15-5-16.2. A party seeking a reduction in child support must present evidence showing a change in circumstances  either an abatement of the needs of [the] children or an impairment of [the] financial ability to provide for those needs. Heatherton v. Heatherton, 110 R.I. 144, 146, 290 A.2d 912, 913-14 (1972). According to Joanne, when the parties separated in April 2001, Norman began paying $800 per week in child support and spousal support. [14] The record discloses that during a contentious hearing on December 16, 2002, the trial justice entered an order prepared by Norman's counsel that entirely suspended Norman's support obligations. This order was entered without notice and without a showing of any change in circumstances. [15] Although the trial justice failed to make any ruling on this issue and may not have read the order, Joanne's support payments were eliminated. Joanne moved to vacate the order, arguing that a motion to modify was not before the court and that Norman failed to produce any evidence showing a change in circumstances. The trial justice arbitrarily reestablished a support payment of $400 per week, without any evidence or reference to the support guidelines. This new order was then signed by a different Family Court justice. Our review of the record discloses that the trial justice failed during the initial hearing on December 16, 2002, to make findings of fact concerning Norman's ability to pay and further compounded this error when he reinstated half the amount again without the benefit of any evidence or even a passing reference to the support guidelines. The trial justice found that by reducing the support to $400, he was simply giving both parties relief. The trial justice said that: I am entering a temporary order for $400.    Rather than $800, that gives [Norman] some relief and that will still give [Joanne] some money that will be used for the support of these children. Norman's support obligations were again suspended on October 22, 2003. [16] Finding that Norman had no source of income, the trial justice determined that support payments would be suspended until Norman began earning income, but that Joanne could seek review of that decision. Joanne sought reconsideration on December 5, 2003, and the court denied her motion without explanation. Joanne again moved for reconsideration in May 2004, citing, inter alia, Norman's financial ability to buy the marital home and the commercial property for a combined amount of $2,351,500. A hearing never was held, an order for temporary support never was reinstituted, and Joanne has been without support since then. In our view, this was an abuse of discretion.
Joanne alleges that the trial justice's award of alimony, like the award of child support, was arbitrary and erroneous. The trial justice issued an order on February 17, 2004, awarding Joanne rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $700 per week. [17] In what was an all-too-frequent occurrence, the award was not accompanied by any reasoning or rationale, as required by 15-5-16. In fact, our review of the record discloses that the trial justice was not prepared to make a decision on the issue of alimony during that particular hearing. The judge said at one point, I am not going to make a ruling on alimony at this time until both pieces of property are sold at this point and I see what Mr. Cardinale ends up with and what Mrs. Cardinale ends up with. Then I will make a decision with respect to alimony; until then, that's up in the air. And I will make a ruling on that once the properties are sold. After Joanne's counsel informed the trial justice that an appeal could not be taken from his ruling until all issues had been addressed, as ordered by this Court, the trial justice said, All right. I am going to make a decision right now. Mr. Cardinale is to pay Mrs. Cardinale as rehabilitative alimony non-modifiable the amount of $700.00 a week for a period of two years. The foregoing represents the full extent of the trial justice's consideration of the issue of alimony; its insufficiency is glaringly obvious. We are mindful that the trial justice had relieved Norman of all support obligations because of his alleged inability to pay and there was no temporary support order in effect. Joanne was left with no alimony or support whatsoever. Yet, with no factual findings, the trial justice summarily awarded $700 per week in alimony for two years. The award clearly violates 15-5-16.1(c), which mandates that, [t]he assignment of property, if any, to be made shall precede the award of alimony, since the needs of each party will be affected by the assignment of property   . (Emphasis added.)