Disclaimer: BS Kids LLC legal research and information has been prepared for educational and informational purposes only. This material is not
legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Transmission of the information is not intended to create and receipt does not constitute a
lawyer-client relationship between BS Kids LLC , the author of the information and any other legal publisher. Customers of BS Kids should not act
upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The opinions expressed in the material presented to BS Kids clientele is based on
information found in legal publications. BS Kids LLC, 6 Mackinac Court, Pooler, Ga. 31322 (912) 988-1001 or 781-756-1214.
legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Transmission of the information is not intended to create and receipt does not constitute a
lawyer-client relationship between BS Kids LLC , the author of the information and any other legal publisher. Customers of BS Kids should not act
upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The opinions expressed in the material presented to BS Kids clientele is based on
information found in legal publications. BS Kids LLC, 6 Mackinac Court, Pooler, Ga. 31322 (912) 988-1001 or 781-756-1214.
A Child Advocacy Company
Bringing Support to Parents
Building Strength to Children
Bringing Support to Parents
Building Strength to Children
News
Court must approve change in child support amount
CONCORD, N.H.—Parents can't change a child support order without approval by the court, the New
Hampshire Supreme Court says, in what is proving a costly lesson for an unemployed father.
The divorced parents of a now-4-year-old girl agreed in writing two years ago to amend child support
payments after the father, Anthony Laura, lost his job with a Francestown pool company.
The private agreement between the parents reduced the amount of money Laura owed from $57 a week
to $50 a month. But the agreement is invalid because the family court did not approve it and Laura is now
liable for about $5,000 in back payments for the court-ordered support.
The state Division of Child Support Services sent Anthony Laura the bill this summer after his ex-wife,
Ericka Scott, applied for food stamps and other state assistance.
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the private agreement has no bearing on the court-
ordered back support Laura owes.
The justices ruled that the state's child support guidelines are in place to help guarantee adequate
support for children and require that parents meet their support responsibilities based on their income and
ability to pay.
"While Laura argues that his change of financial situation was sufficient to warrant the modification of the
child support agreement, the statute explicitly requires judicial approval of any agreement that departs
from the child support guidelines," Justice James Duggan wrote, for the unanimous court.
Attorney James Laura represented his son in the appeal. He said he disagrees strongly with the court's
ruling.
"It's allowing the state to come in and open up cases that are closed and interject themselves into those
matters," James Laura said of the state's demand for back support.
CONCORD, N.H.—Parents can't change a child support order without approval by the court, the New
Hampshire Supreme Court says, in what is proving a costly lesson for an unemployed father.
The divorced parents of a now-4-year-old girl agreed in writing two years ago to amend child support
payments after the father, Anthony Laura, lost his job with a Francestown pool company.
The private agreement between the parents reduced the amount of money Laura owed from $57 a week
to $50 a month. But the agreement is invalid because the family court did not approve it and Laura is now
liable for about $5,000 in back payments for the court-ordered support.
The state Division of Child Support Services sent Anthony Laura the bill this summer after his ex-wife,
Ericka Scott, applied for food stamps and other state assistance.
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the private agreement has no bearing on the court-
ordered back support Laura owes.
The justices ruled that the state's child support guidelines are in place to help guarantee adequate
support for children and require that parents meet their support responsibilities based on their income and
ability to pay.
"While Laura argues that his change of financial situation was sufficient to warrant the modification of the
child support agreement, the statute explicitly requires judicial approval of any agreement that departs
from the child support guidelines," Justice James Duggan wrote, for the unanimous court.
Attorney James Laura represented his son in the appeal. He said he disagrees strongly with the court's
ruling.
"It's allowing the state to come in and open up cases that are closed and interject themselves into those
matters," James Laura said of the state's demand for back support.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |