In re the Marriage of Schneider
268 P.3d 215, 173 Wash. 2d 353 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the law of the state that issued the initial controlling child support order governs the duration of the support obligation. An award of postsecondary educational support is a durational aspect of child support, and a modifying state cannot extend this obligation beyond what is permitted by the law of the issuing state.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Almgren and Carol Schneider divorced in Nebraska in 1997.
- Their Nebraska divorce decree required Almgren to pay child support for their two children until each child reached the age of majority, which is 19 in Nebraska.
- The Nebraska decree did not contain any provision for postsecondary educational support.
- Schneider moved with the children to Washington, while Almgren moved to Minnesota.
- After their daughter, Amanda, was accepted to college in Washington, Schneider sought to have Almgren pay for her postsecondary education.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Schneider registered the 1997 Nebraska divorce decree in Asotin County Superior Court, a Washington trial court.
- In 2007, the Washington trial court entered a modified child support order that reserved the right for a party to request postsecondary educational support.
- In 2009, Schneider petitioned the trial court for an order requiring Jeffrey Almgren to pay postsecondary support for their daughter, Amanda.
- The trial court granted Schneider's motion and ordered Almgren to pay postsecondary educational support.
- Almgren filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that UIFSA prohibited the order, which the trial court denied.
- Almgren, as appellant, appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, holding that UIFSA did not apply because the trial court was modifying its own 2007 Washington order.
- Almgren, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
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), as adopted in Washington, permit a Washington court to modify a Nebraska child support order to award postsecondary educational support when Nebraska law does not authorize courts to order such support?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, J.
No. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) does not permit a Washington court to award postsecondary educational support because the duration of a child support obligation is governed exclusively by the law of the state that issued the initial controlling order, which was Nebraska. The court reasoned that a primary purpose of UIFSA is to create a 'one-order' system and prevent forum shopping by litigants seeking more favorable child support laws. Under RCW 26.21A.550(4), the law of the state that issued the 'initial controlling order' governs the duration of support. Here, Nebraska was the issuing state. The court rejected the Court of Appeals' theory that the trial court was modifying its own 2007 order, stating that any subsequent modification is still a modification of the initial controlling order. Because an award of postsecondary support is a change to the duration of the support obligation, and Nebraska law does not permit a court to order such support absent a prior agreement between the parties, the Washington trial court exceeded its authority by granting it.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'one-order' principle of UIFSA in Washington, clarifying that the duration of child support is fixed by the law of the original issuing state and is non-modifiable by a new forum state. By defining postsecondary educational support as a 'durational' aspect, the ruling prevents a parent from moving to a state with more generous support laws, like Washington, to extend a support obligation beyond what was contemplated in the original jurisdiction. This holding promotes national uniformity and predictability in interstate child support enforcement, even if it leads to outcomes that differ from the forum state's domestic policy.
