Difference between revisions of "Changing Family Law Orders, Awards and Agreements Involving Child Support"

*"It will be easier to show that a retroactive award causes undue hardship" — compared to normal child support (also called ''prospective child support''), a court is more open to find that an order that goes back in time (and imposes years of cumulative liability for payment on the payor) will cause ''undue hardship''.

*In other words, when a payor is paying less than the Guidelines require, a court may award retroactive support if the payor's financial fortunes improved after the date of an order or agreement dealing with child support. In making such an order, the court must consider:

**any excuse for the recipient’s delay in seeking an increase in support,

**any blameworthy conduct on the part of the payor,

**the circumstances of the child, and

**any hardship that a retroactive award would cause to the payor.

*If a retroactive award is made, the award should be made retroactive to the point in time that the payor received notice of the recipient's intention to seek a child support increase, but to a limit of three years. If the payor’s conduct is blameworthy, then the support should be retroactive to the actual date the payor’s financial circumstances changed, even if that date is beyond the three-year mark.