Court Opinion

ID: 9861901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:53:42.415647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:42.146642
License: Public Domain

SCHULTZ, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from division II of the majority opinion. I find no change of *220circumstances sufficient to permit the “extension” of child support beyond the period originally agreed upon, which agreement became a part of the decree.
It is true that the appellant has had an increase in income; but it is obvious that the increase is principally due to inflation. This change of circumstance would provide a basis to increase substantially the support for an eligible child under the decree. It is not a change that should modify the period of support to extend beyond the original termination date, however. At the time of the stipulation and decree, it should' have been foreseeable that the children might attend college. The cost of that responsibility was not placed on the appellant, however.
The majority rely on Beasley v. Beasley, 159 N.W.2d 449 (Iowa 1968), as authority for the proposition that a child’s enrollment in college, coupled with a parent’s increase in income, constitute a sufficient change of circumstances to justify modification of a decree to require an increase in the amount of child support. In the present case, however, by the terms of the decree, support has terminated; the modification creates a new time period for support, rather than determining an amount of support for a period of time established in the original decree.
Beasley is distinguishable from the present case. In Beasley the original decree provided for support while the child was in school, with no mention of termination at the completion of high school. A subsequent modification changed custody from the mother to the father; however, support by the mother was neither agreed to nor decreed. This was remedied by a later modification that provided for support from the mother while the children were in college. Moreover, there was no decree providing that support would terminate upon graduation from high school; support was ordered for the period originally contemplated.
I would hold that sufficient evidence has not been presented of a subsequent material and substantial change of circumstances, unforeseen at the time the decree was entered, to warrant modifying the period of support stipulated in the original decree.