Richardson v. Boozer (2012) & Stopping Support Payments

Published on
February 6, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Custody and Child Support

Child support is one of the financial aspects of divorce which is essentially “off limits” for the litigants. Child support is a mandatory responsibility for parents that cannot be negotiated away in a private agreement. In Maryland, all parents must financially support their children, regardless of the specific details of a divorce. In Maryland, child support laws dictate that parents are obligated to financially support their children, irrespective of whether the divorce is amicable or contentious.

Maryland has set guidelines to calculate a parent's required financial support. Maryland has fixed rules for stopping child support payments that apply to all cases. Child support payments stop when a child turns 18 and one of these conditions occurs: the child graduates from high school, becomes emancipated, turns 19, or gets married. In the case of Richardson v. Boozer (2012), the definition of “secondary school” came into dispute in this context. Let's take a closer look at this significant case.

Factual Overview of the Case

The couple in this case divorced in 2005. In 2009, the couple tried to create a private child support agreement stating that the father would pay support until their child turned 18 or graduated from high school. Later in 2009, the child decided to move in with this father because he didn’t want to abide his mother’s rules. Subsequently, in 2010, the child went back to live with his mother. The child didn't graduate from secondary school on time and had to repeat his final year to do so. In 2011, the father requested to get back some of the support money he paid while the child lived with him. He also wanted to stop payments based on a private agreement with the mother, which stated payments would end when the child turned 18 or graduated.

Outcome & Discussion

The trial court denied the father’s motion. The father appealed and the appellate division upheld the lower court’s decision. The appellate court said that the mother and father couldn't make private agreements about child support and that standard rules were applied. The private agreement between the parents held that the support payments should cease when the child turned 18; this was overturned based on the standard rules in Maryland. However, the father argued that, because his child failed to graduate “on schedule,” this should be construed as a basis to stop payments. As referenced above, graduation is one of the conditions which can trigger cessation, and the father contended that the failure to graduation time should fall within the parameters of this condition. The court rejected this argument, and concluded that failure to graduate on time was not within the meaning of that term. Consequently, the father was ordered to continue payments until the child turned 19.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like more information on child support, or another related matter, reach out to one of the top attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Child Support, Payments, Guidelines, Maryland Law, Divorce Agreement, Parental Responsibility, Legal Obligations, Child Emancipation, Graduation Requirements, Legal Dispute, Appellate Court, Court Ruling, Custodial Parent, Non-Custodial Parent, Private Agreement

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.