Whether courts “are permitted to modify child support orders whenever changed circumstances demand”; Procedural method employed to contest the $100,000 transfer provisions; Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO)

The court held that courts “are permitted to modify child support orders whenever changed circumstances demand, even if the child support award was negotiated as part of a consent judgment of divorce.” Thus, the court affirmed. The “parties agreed to a one-time lump-sum child support payment [$100,000] in the consent judgment of divorce. Before the payment could be made, the recipient [defendant-Brian-ex-husband] stopped exercising most of his parenting time. This change of circumstances warranted review of the child support award. The circuit court agreed with this principle but cited other grounds for granting the relief requested.” Brian continued to argue “the one-time $100,000 transfer is part of the property settlement, not a child support award.” He claimed the consent judgment did “not make the $100,000 transfer contingent on his exercise of parenting time. However, the transfer requirement clearly was a child support award, and the consent judgment provided for equal parenting time of alternating weeks.” Brian contended the $100,000 award could not “be modified because the consent judgment and UCSO deviation addendum state that the transfer already occurred and child support orders cannot be modified retroactively absent very limited circumstances.” The court held that despite “the use of the past tense in the judgment and addendum, the referenced $100,000 transfer had not yet occurred when the parties’ penned their signatures, and they both knew it. The delay appears to be a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and was not the fault of either party. Both parties understood at signing that the transfer would occur in the future. And as a future child support payment, the award was modifiable.” Brian also challenged the procedural method plaintiff-Shana employed to contest the $100,000 transfer provisions. The court held that she established “circumstances had changed since entry of the consent judgment and UCSO deviation addendum. The parties had anticipated sharing equal parenting time, justifying an award of child support from Shana to Brian to ensure the children’s needs were met in his care. In reality, Brian exercised minimal parenting time. The existing child support order diverted funds away from the primary custodian that should be available for the children’s care. Modification was required to benefit the children following this change in circumstances.”