Answers to Complex Child Support Questions | Utah Child Support Lawyer

We receive many phone calls each week regarding child support matters. Below are a few of the court cases which have clarified some of the more complex questions involving child support. You should be aware that the information below is not intended to be legal advice to your particular situation but is just presented as general information. If you have questions regarding any of the issues addressed below, you should speak with a Utah Child Support Lawyer at our office right away.

  • Garrand v. Garrand, 615 P.2d 422 (1980): Requiring child support for a child beyond age 21 on grounds that he was retarded and incapable of self-support was justified in light of statute placing responsibility on parents for the support of a child of whatever age if incapacitated and without sufficient means.
  • Riding v. Riding, 329 P.2d 878 (1958): The obligation of support cannot be changed even by a court, unless that parents obligations are extinguished through adoption or hearing to terminate parental rights.
  • Interest of R.N.J v. M.M.J., 908 P.2d 345 (1995): Only in the most aggravated and difficult cases do the best interests of the child call for the court to relieve a living, capable insolvent parent from the obligation to support his/her child.
  • Baggs v. Anderson, 528 P.2d 141 (Utah 1974): The right to receive current and future money belongs to the minor children; and is not subject to being negotiated away, and stopped, or in any way defeated by the conduct of the parents or others.  Obligor cannot divest himself of that obligation, nor defeat the child’s right to support.
  • French v. Johnson, 401 P.2d 315 (Utah 1965): Future payments of support cannot be released.  Such agreements are without consideration, and void as a matter of public policy. A parent may not by any act, conduct, or arrangement of whatever sort shift from his shoulders to legal responsibility and moral duty to support his minor child.  It is an absolute, inalienable right enjoyed by the child which no form of the contract between the parents, nor change of domestic status or either of them, may affect.
  • Mancil v. Smith, 18 P.3d 509, (2000.UT App 378): Imputation of income is prohibited in a limited number of circumstances including when “ a parent is engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills.”  78B-12-203(7)(d)(iii).  Four-year college education is not training contemplated by this statute, since it would afford employment at a level far beyond the necessary to establish basic job skills.  A child’s right to support should not be held hostage to parents desire to get higher education.  Moreover, in today’s society, pursuit of higher education does not preclude employment.
  • Proctor v. Proctor, 773 P.2d 1389 (Utah App. 1989): Actual income or earnings is different than ability to earn.  An able-bodied person who stops working, as a result of personal preference or of punishment for intentional criminal act, retains the ability to earn and the duty to support his or her children.  In fashioning an appropriate support order where there is inadequate income flow, the court may consider assets of a responsible parent with which the support obligation can be met.

Utah Divorce Attorneys

At Salcido Law Firm you can speak with one of our Utah Divorce Attorneys anytime to answer your complex child support questions. Whether you have questions in defending child support claim, collecting, or jsut clarifying your order, we can help.


Send Us A Message

More Posts

When is a protective sweep justified?

What Is A Protective Sweep?

A Protective Sweep is an Exception to the Warrant Rule. Generally speaking, law enforcement officers cannot enter your home to conduct a search without a