SENATE BILL REPORT

SHB 413

BYHouse Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Crane, Armstrong and P. King) 

Providing additional grounds for the modification of child support.

House Committe on Judiciary

Senate Committee on Judiciary

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 31, 1987; April 1, 1987; April 2, 1987

Majority Report:  Do pass as amended.

      Signed by Senators Talmadge, Chairman; Halsan, Vice Chairman; McCaslin, Nelson.

Senate Staff:Lidia Mori (786-7461)

                  April 2, 1987

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, APRIL 2, 1987

BACKGROUND:

A party to a dissolution of marriage proceeding, legal separation, declaration of invalidity or paternity determination may be required by the court to pay child support.  Child support orders may be modified by showing that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred since the order was entered.  Washington courts have held that child support orders requiring periodic adjustments based on an index are invalid.

The courts have developed certain legal doctrines to protect against delay of action by a party.  Two important doctrines are laches and equitable estoppel.  Under the doctrine of laches, a person who fails to do something when it should be done or who fails to claim or enforce a right at the proper time may be precluded by a court from enforcing that right at a later time. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel a person who, by his or her actions or failure to act, causes another person to do or not do something in reliance on the action or failure to act, may be prohibited from asserting an otherwise valid claim if to permit the claim would be against good conscience.

SUMMARY:

The court, under certain limited circumstances, may modify a child support order even though there has not been a substantial change of circumstances.  A party may request a modification of child support without showing a substantial change of circumstances if the order works such a severe economic hardship on a party or the child as to be unconscionable, the child is in an age category different from the one on which the support award is based, the child is in high school and will turn eighteen before completing high school, or to add an automatic adjustment of support provision.

The remarriage of either party, the addition of subsequent dependents, the needs of another spouse or dependents, or voluntary unemployment or underemployment cannot, by themselves, constitute a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of supporting a modification of child support order.  A party may not use the doctrines of laches or equitable estoppel to defend against a motion for modification of child support.

A modification of child support is commenced by filing a petition and financial affidavit with the superior court in the form prescribed by the administrator for the courts. The opposing party must be served with the petition and a copy of a blank financial affidavit.  The Department of Social and Health Services must be notified of a petition to modify child support if the Department has been assigned the claim.  The court holds a hearing based on the petition and supporting affidavits unless the court determines that oral testimony is necessary for a fair determination of the issues. 

As part of a proceeding in which child support is ordered, the court may include a provision requiring annual adjustments based on changes in a party's income or the child's needs or changes in an index or schedule.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SENATE AMENDMENT:

A child support order may be modified after one year without showing a substantial change of circumstances if the order causes a severe economic hardship on either party or the child.  An obligor's voluntary unemployment or voluntary underemployment, by itself, does not constitute a substantial change of circumstances.

The defenses of equitable estoppel and laches may be utilized when appropriate.

There is a fee of $20 for the filing of a petition for modification of decree of dissolution.

Fiscal Note:      available

Senate Committee - Testified: Representative Ernest Crane; Representative Seth Armstrong; Lucille Christensen, Dept. of Social and Health Services; Suzanne Howel, Washington State Bar Association, Family Law Section, Seattle-King County Bar Association; Harvey Kriloff