The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-00-20
DM REV ~ 6/80/2020
JAMES BROWN,
Petitioner
v. . DECISION AND ORDER
STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Pode Respondent... Ti ES ES Ie Loe STE i Sete See So ee tar ee
This matter is before the court on review of final agency action pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P. 80C. The plaintiff was obligated by court order of February, 1991, to
make child-support payments on behalf of his two minor children. From
November of 1996, Miranda, one of his children, has lived with Brown. During that
period until her 18th birthday, Brown refused to make any support payments. On
January 14, 2000, the respondent served the petitioner with a notice of debt which
alleged that he owed $17,253. Brown argued at the administrative hearing, as he
does now, that he is entitled to have that portion of arrearages attributable to
Miranda for the period during which she lived with him deducted from the total
debt found by the hearing officer.’ The hearing officer refused to retroactively adjust
the payment obligation and Brown now appeals that decision to this court.
When the decision of an administrative agency is appealed pursuant to
M.R. Civ. P. 80C, this court reviews the agency’s decision directly for abuse of
discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence. Centamore v.
Dep’t of Human Services, 664 A.2d 369, 370 (Me. 1995). Petitioner Brown argues in
brief that he is entitled to a reduction of the debt calculated by the hearing officer by
the amount applicable to his oldest child, Miranda, during the period she was living
with him.
A party who files a motion to modify a child support obligation pursuant to
19-A M.R.S.A. § 2009(2) (Supp. 2000) can request that a child support order be
modified retroactively, but section 2009 specifically notes that the modification can
be retroactively applied only from the date notice of the petition for modification
---was served on.the other-party.See Beck v..Beck;1999 ME 110,-99-8-9, 733 A.2d-981,---
984. The facts there were similar to those at bar. The responsible parent ceased to
make child support payments in part because one of his children began living with
him. The Court there stated that a court modification of the divorce judgment to
reflect any agreement or change in the living circumstances of their children should
have been sought. Without such modification the District Court did not have the
authority to retroactively alter child support obligations that had accumulated prior
to his motion for relief from the divorce judgment to reflect an alleged oral
agreement between the parties and changes in the living arrangements of his
daughters. Id.
Brown relies on Wood v. Wood, 407 A.2d 282, 287 (Me. 1979) for the
proposition that the common law allows exceptions to this general rule against
retroactive modification of support orders. While the court in dicta includes
language which provides for narrow exceptions (death, emancipation, majority) the
larger holding of Wood lends further support to the hearing officer’s conclusions
v
below.!
Further, the responsible parent in Beck used Wood for the same
proposition as does Brown. The Court, while acknowledging the common law
exceptions valid, found them inapplicable to those facts. Id. atn.4. In addition to
the narrowing effect of 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2009, not available to the Wood court, the
facts are sufficiently similar here to find the common law exceptions inapplicable.
Here, the respondent does not have the authority to retroactively alter child
support obligations that accumulated prior to Brown’s request at hearing to have
cash payments credited to his outstanding debt to reflect an alleged oral agreement
between the parties or changes in living arrangements of Brown’s children. Id.; see
also 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2009 (1), (2).
There being no errors of law found in the administrative hearing below, the
entry will be:
The decision of the Department of Human Services is
AFFIRMED.
Dated: August_7_, 2000 cag
Donald H. Marden
Justice, Superior Court
1 Specifically, the court in Wood emphasizes the importance of the custodial parent to be able
to rely upon an order of payments until some legal modification is executed. Also integral to its
reasoning is the court’s disfavor of self-help regarding modification of support payments.
3
ate Filed__4/14/00 KENNEBEC Docket No, __AP:-00 -020
County J. MARDEN
Action Petition for Review
80C
James Brown vs. State of Maine. Dept of Human Services
Plaintiff’s Attorney Defendant’s Attorney
Ronald L. Bishop. Esq. * Raymond Ritchie AAG
PO Box 34 Dept of Attorney General
Waterville ME 04903 6 State House Station
Augusta ME 04333 0006
Date of
Entry
04-14--00 Petition for Review with attachments filed
04-14-00 | Notice of Appearance. filed. s/R Ritchie AAG
5/1/00 Certified record filed. s/Ritchie AAG
5/1/00 Notice of briefing schedule mailed to attys of record.
6/12/00 Appellant, James Brown, Brief, filed. s/Bishop, Esq.
Brief
07/18/00 Respondent, State of Maine, Department of Human Serviced filed on
7/17/00. s/R. Ritchie, AAG
8/29/00 Hearing had on oral arguments with Hon. Justice Donald Marden, presiding.
Tape #541 Index 2024-2426
Ronald Bishop, Esq,. for the Plaintiff and Raymond Ritchie, AAG for the
State.
Oral arguments made to the court.
Court to take matter under advisement.
8/31/00 DECISION AND ORDER, Marden, J.
The decision of the Department of Human Services is AFFIRMED.
. Copies mailed to attys of record.
Copies mailed to Deborah Firestone, Garbrecht Library and Goss.
Notice of removal of record mailed.
A yae
LAW LBM?
SEP 11:20
wot ES Memmi IE a.