Department of Human Services Ex Rel. Young v. Leifester
1998 ME 266, 721 A.2d 189 (1998)
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), a court has the discretion to allow an unverified amendment to a support petition to include a request for retroactive child support, and may order past child support based on state law's child support guidelines rather than actual expenditures.
Facts:
- Julie Young gave birth to her son, Travis, in 1982.
- Young never requested child support from Gregory Leifester nor initiated a court action to obtain support.
- In 1996, the Maine Department of Human Services (DHS), at the request of the Maryland State Attorney's Office, filed a Uniform Support Petition on behalf of Young against Leifester pursuant to UIFSA.
- The initial petition alleged Leifester was Travis's father and requested a determination of paternity, an award of child support, and medical coverage, but did not specifically request collection of arrears or retroactive child support.
- In March 1997, DHS filed an amendment, sent by the Maryland State Attorney's Office at Young's request, that altered the petition only by including a request for the collection of arrears or retroactive child support.
- DNA testing demonstrated a strong likelihood that Leifester was the father of Travis.
- Leifester stipulated to paternity at the hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- The Maine Department of Human Services (DHS), acting at the request of the Maryland State Attorney's Office, filed a Uniform Support Petition on behalf of Julie Young against Gregory Leifester in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Maine), which is a trial court.
- DHS subsequently filed an amendment to the petition to include a request for retroactive child support.
- The Superior Court determined paternity, established ongoing child support, and ordered Leifester to reimburse Young $21,346 for past child support.
- Leifester appealed the Superior Court's order for past child support to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the Law Court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) permit a court to accept an unverified amendment to a support petition requesting retroactive child support, and does it authorize the calculation of such past support based on state child support guidelines rather than actual expenditures?
Opinions:
Majority - Wathen, C.J.
Yes, UIFSA permits a court to accept an unverified amendment to a support petition requesting retroactive child support, and it authorizes the calculation of such past support based on state child support guidelines rather than actual expenditures. The court first addressed the amendment, noting that while UIFSA requires initial petitions to be verified, it does not explicitly require verification for amendments. Thus, under 19 M.R.S.A. § 423-B, Maine's substantive and procedural laws apply. Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 15(a) allow liberal amendment to pleadings to do substantial justice, aligning with UIFSA's remedial nature. Second, regarding past child support, the court found that UIFSA broadly defines "support order" to include arrearages or reimbursement (19 M.R.S.A. § 421(21)) and grants responding tribunals authority to determine arrearages (19 M.R.S.A. § 423-D(2)(D)). Maine's Uniform Act on Paternity (19 M.R.S.A. § 272), applied per UIFSA, explicitly permits courts to order past child support. Third, concerning the calculation method, the court held that amendments to 19 M.R.S.A. § 272 subsequent to White v. Allen, 667 A.2d 112 (Me. 1995), require past support to be calculated by applying current child support guidelines to the period for which support is owed, rather than being limited to actual and reasonable expenditures. The court upheld the use of DHS's child support worksheet applying these guidelines.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interplay between UIFSA and state procedural and substantive law regarding child support enforcement. It emphasizes the remedial nature of UIFSA, promoting liberal construction to ensure children receive support, even across state lines. The ruling reinforces judicial discretion in allowing amendments that provide fair notice and ensures that states can apply their own child support guidelines for calculating past support, settling a prior ambiguity in Maine law regarding the calculation method. This provides clarity for enforcement agencies and courts dealing with interstate child support cases.
