.webp)
Like all other jurisdictions throughout the country, the State of Maryland recognizes that parents have a firm financial obligation to support their children. This is the basic premise from which all other rules pertaining to child support flow. However, although this basic premise is clear, certain of the rules which follow from this premise aren’t always straightforward or easy to absorb.
Certain principles, such as the principle which governs post-judgment child support modification, may be a bit tricky because they require such a powerful, individualized analysis. Frequently, parents who pay child support need to return to court to revise or alter the underlying child support order. When that happens, the court conducts an individualized analysis of each factual scenario to make a determination regarding modification. What happens when someone seeks to “retroactively modify” a given child support order? In other words, what happens when a parent requests, for whatever reason, that a child support amount be modified from a date prior to the date that the request for modification is filed?
This issue recently turned up in the case of Pellet v. Pellet (2025). Let’s examine this case in a bit of detail.
Facts of the Case
The mother in this case filed for divorce in 2009. By that time, the parties already had two children together, one born in 2001, the other in 2004. In 2017, the parties went to court to finalize a revised agreement on both custody and child support. Ultimately, they ended up developing a Consent Order which was signed by the court. By 2019, the father had significant financial issues stemming from his loss of employment, and he fell behind on his support payments. By 2020, the father was sure that he would continue to experience financial problems partly because of the shutdowns and policies related to COVID-19.
In 2021, after additional negotiations among the parties, and other communications with the court itself, the father filed a petition to modify the child support amount. But, the father requested specifically that the amount be modified on a “retroactive” basis, as of 2017, because he argued that 2017 is when he began experiencing financial problems. In other words, the father wanted the amount to be changed back in 2017, which would mean that his total obligation – which included both his arrearages and also current payment amount – would be altered. The mother challenged this request, arguing that this sort of retroactive modification was not allowed under Maryland law.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
At the trial court level, the father lost as the court determined that such retroactive modification was indeed contrary to Maryland law. When the father appealed, he argued that this determination by the trial court was erroneous, claiming that his unique circumstances permitted this type of modification. While there was no issue at all that the father had experienced a material change in circumstances, the appellate division ultimately rejected the father’s contention. This was a clear case of a party running into a “bright line rule” and failing to surpass it. Although the father could reasonably argue that his circumstances warranted such an exception, the appellate court simply refused to alter this bright line rule. In its reasoning, the appellate division cited multiple pieces of authority – statutory and common law – to substantiate its conclusions.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Resources
To learn more about child support modification, child support guidelines for calculation, the concept of “material change” in circumstances, or any other pertinent family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
