Support Changes if You Don’t Visit as Agreed

A mother commenced dissolution of marriage matter, with a minor child, in November, 2007. In March and April, 2008, the trail court entered temporary orders, including an order for child support in the amount of $1,665.00 per month, and an order for temporary parenting time to Father of alternating weekends (First Parenting Plan, or “FPP”).

In September, 2008, the parties entered a Rule 69 Agreement, wherein they agreed to deviate from the Guideline calculation for support of $1,665.00 per month, to $300.00 per month, in recognition that Father incurred significant travel expense to travel from his state of residence, California, to Arizona to exercise parenting time pursuant to the FPP.

Thereafter, Father lodged a decree which purported the child support deviation to be “permanent.”Mother objected to the decree, alleging the Rule 69 Agreement did not include a “permanent” deviation. The trail court ordered the parties to arbitrate the final language of the decree. In October, 2009, the trail court adopted a revised parenting plan (“RPP”), where Father exercised parenting time only on “the second weekend of every second month.” On October 30, 2009, after the arbitrated decree had been finalized, but before the trail court entered arbitrated decree, Mother filed a petition to modify child support, alleging Father’s travel expense to exercise parenting time was reduced by entry of the RPP, and that Father did not exercise any parenting anyway. Thereafter, the trail court entered the decree, held child support modification hearing, denied Mother’s petition to modify support, and denied Mother’s motion for new trial.

As Mother argued to the trail court, Mother argued to the court of appeals that Father’s failure to visit the child and travel to Arizona, combined with the reduced parenting time of the RPP adopted at Father’s request), constituted a material change of circumstances warranting modification of the child support obligation. Father argued to the court of appeals that when the trail court entered the decree, it already adopted the RPP and, thus, the reduced parenting time did not represent a change of circumstances existing at the dissolution.

The court of appeals found settlement agreements do not preclude modification of support, custody, or parenting time: Settlement agreements, such as the parties' Rule 69 Agreement, do not preclude the modification of “terms concerning ... the support, custody or parenting time of children.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 25–317(F) (2001). An “order for child support may be modified or terminated on a showing of changed circumstance that is substantial and continuing.” A.R.S. § 25–503(E) (2009).

The court of appeals further found the difference in the anticipated travel costs associated with exercise of the FPP, and the travel costs actually incurred (or not incurred as a result of Father’s failure to exercise the RPP) is a substantial and continuing change of circumstance, which warranted a modification of the child support order, pursuant to A.R.S. § 25–503(E).

The court of appeals held the trail court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s motion for new trial, reversed the denial, and remanded the case for a new hearing on Mother’s petition to modify child support consistent with the court of appeals decision.