{
  "id": 11919759,
  "name": "EDWARD L. GARRISON, DIRECTOR, PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. LOIS ANN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PAUL CONNOR, JR., Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garrison ex rel. Williams v. Connor",
  "decision_date": "1996-06-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-610",
  "first_page": "702",
  "last_page": "706",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 702"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "89 ALR2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Fed. Reg. 61,559",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Fed. Reg.",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61,560"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(cl)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c1)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c1)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 506,
    "char_count": 10770,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.775791497417095e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8963265812022245
    },
    "sha256": "3104fe30701a83b3d6fb3ebbd2ae77c04500342cf1d471e12ebe3e863446c5ec",
    "simhash": "1:c7bf8306dbbb3f54",
    "word_count": 1728
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDWARD L. GARRISON, DIRECTOR, PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. LOIS ANN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PAUL CONNOR, JR., Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nPlaintiff and defendant are the biological parents of twin sons bom 20 April 1982. On 3 April 1985, defendant entered into a voluntary support agreement and order in which he agreed to pay plaintiff $25.00 per week in child support. On 3 October 1994, plaintiff filed a motion to increase the amount of child support in the original order. As grounds for her motion, plaintiff stated:\n3. Upon information and belief, it is alleged the Defendant now has an income of $1,993.18, which is a substantial increase in income from the date of the [original] order ....\n4. At the time this action was instituted, the reasonable expenses necessary to meet the needs of the minor child(ren) . . . were much less than they are at the present time. The reasonable expenses for the health, education, maintenance and welfare of the minor child(ren) . . . exceed $465.22.\n5. There has been a substantial change of circumstances warranting an increase in the amount of the defendant\u2019s child support obligation.\nIn addition to a monetary increase, plaintiff requested that defendant be required \u201cto add the minor child(ren) ... as beneficiary(ies) to any health insurance policy provided to the Defendant by his employer, if such addition can be done at a reasonable cost to the Defendant\u201d and \u201cto pay one-half of all uninsured medical bills of the minor children, for as long as Defendant is required to pay child support.\u201d\nFollowing a hearing at which both parties were present and represented by counsel, the trial court entered an order finding as follows:\n4. When the Order of child support . . . was entered herein, the Defendant had an income that was less than it is at this time. At the present time, the Defendant earns a gross monthly salary of $1,993.18 through his employment....\n5. The Defendant testified that he did not remember how much he earned in 1985 but that he has had salary increases since that time.\n7. There has been a substantial change of circumstances warranting an increase in the amount of Defendant\u2019s child support obligation based on the fact that the Order is more than three (3) years old and the amount of child support owed under the new guidelines is more than a 15% increase over the original order.\nBased on these findings, the court concluded as a matter of law that there had been a substantial change of circumstances warranting an increase in defendant\u2019s child support obligation and ordered that defendant\u2019s child support obligation be increased to $490.00 per month beginning 1 January 1995. The court also ordered defendant to add the minor children to his health insurance policy if such could be done \u201cat no extra cost\u201d to defendant. However, the court did not order that defendant be responsible for any portion of uninsured medical expenses incurred on behalf of the minor children.\nAn order for support of a minor child may be modified at any time upon a showing by the moving party of changed circumstances. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7 (1995). It is evident from Finding of Fact 7 of the court\u2019s order that in finding a change of circumstances warranting an increase in defendant\u2019s child support obligation, the court relied on the 1994 revision of North Carolina\u2019s Child Support Guidelines (the Guidelines), which includes the following provision:\nIn any proceeding to modify an existing [child support] order which is three years old or older, a deviation of 15% or more between the amount of the existing order and the amount of child support resulting from application of the Guidelines shall be presumed to constitute a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification. If the order is less than three years old, this presumption does not apply.\nWe have not found any interpretation of this provision by our courts, and the parties differ as to its meaning. Defendant argues that this provision notwithstanding, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances because she did not present evidence that the needs of the children had increased since the entry of the original order. Plaintiff acknowledges that under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.7, she has the burden of showing a change of circumstances; however, she claims she has met this burden by demonstrating that the facts of this case fall within the above provision.\nIn 1988, Congress enacted the Family Support Act (FSA), P.L. 100-485. The FSA required all states to establish, by law or by judicial administrative action, a set of mandatory, presumptive child support guidelines. 42 U.S.C. 667 (1988). In North Carolina, the legislature delegated this responsibility to the Conference of Chief District Judges (the Conference) by the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(cl), which provides:\nEffective July 1, 1990, the Conference of Chief District Judges shall prescribe uniform statewide presumptive guidelines for the computation of child support obligations of each parent as provided in Chapter 50 or elsewhere in the General Statutes and shall develop criteria for determining when, in a particular case, application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate .... The purpose of the guidelines and criteria shall be to ensure that payments ordered for the support of a minor child are in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education, and maintenance ....\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c1) (1989 & Cum. Supp. 1995). Pursuant to this authority, the Conference enacted mandatory presumptive child support guidelines effective 1 July 1990.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c1) also states:\nPeriodically, but at least once every four years, the Conference . . . shall review the guidelines to determine whether their application results in appropriate child support award amounts. The Conference may modify the guidelines accordingly .... Any modifications of the guidelines or criteria shall be reported to the General Assembly by the Administrative Office of the Courts before they become effective ....\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c1) (1989 & Cum. Supp 1995). In keeping with its statutory mandate, the Conference revised the Guidelines in 1991 and again in 1994. Included in the 1994 revisions was the presumption at issue here allowing modification of a child support order which is at least three years old when there is a disparity of 15% or more between the amount of support payable under the original order and the amount owed under the Guidelines based on the parties\u2019 current income and expenses (the 15% presumption). We find the creation of this presumption to be within the scope of the Conference\u2019s legislative mandate to ensure that application of the Guidelines results in adequate child support awards.\nThe Conference\u2019s action in creating the 15% presumption is also consistent with the requirements of the FSA. One of the primary purposes of the FSA is to ensure that child support awards remain adequate overtime. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. 302.56(e) (1996) (requiring states to review their child support guidelines every four years \u201cto ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts\u201d); 45 C.F.R. 303.8(c)(4) (1996) (requiring that all states implement a process for reviewing, at least once every three years, child support orders in cases handled by state or local child support enforcement agencies (IV-D cases)). The United States Department of Health and Human Services, which adopted the regulations implementing the review and adjustment requirements of the FSA, recognized that these requirements would conflict with state laws requiring proof of changed circumstances for modification or adjustment of child support orders, stating that the FSA\nsignals a need for States to at least expand, if not replace, the traditional \u201cchange in circumstances\u201d test as the legal prerequisite for changing the amount of child support to be paid, by making State guidelines the presumptively correct amount of support to be paid.\n57 Fed. Reg. 61,559, 61,560 (1992).\nIn light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the inclusion of the 15% presumption in the revised Guidelines was intended to eliminate the necessity that the moving party show change of circumstances by other means when he or she has presented evidence which satisfies the requirements of the presumption. In addition, as the facts of the present case illustrate, the 15% presumption in the Guidelines provides a much-needed incentive for custodial parents and child support enforcement agencies to periodically review existing child support orders to ensure that they continue to reflect the proper balance between the needs of the children) and the parents\u2019 ability to pay.\nPlaintiff here presented evidence satisfying the requirements of the 15% presumption, and defendant presented no evidence. We therefore hold that under the Guidelines as revised in 1994, plaintiff has shown a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant an increase in defendant\u2019s child support obligation. The order of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges EAGLES and JOHN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pitt County Legal Department, by Associate County Attorney Pamela Weaver Best and Staff Attorney Amy K. Cooney; and R. Erika Churchill; for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "W. Gregory Duke for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDWARD L. GARRISON, DIRECTOR, PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. LOIS ANN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PAUL CONNOR, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA95-610\n(Filed 18 June 1996)\nDivorce and Separation \u00a7 431 (NCI4th)\u2014 child support \u2014 15% presumption \u2014 showing of changed circumstances by other means not required\nThe presumption allowing modification of a child support order which is at least three years old when there is a disparity of 15% or more between the amount of support payable under the original order and the amount owed under the Child Support Guidelines based on the parties\u2019 current income and expenses in the Revised 1994 Child Support Guidelines was intended to eliminate the necessity that the moving party show change of circumstances by other means when he or she has presented evidence which satisfies the requirements of the presumption. The creation of this presumption is within the scope of the Conference of Chief District Judges\u2019 legislative mandate to ensure that application of the Guidelines results in adequate child support awards and is consistent with the requirements of the Family Support Act.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 1018-1021, 1078, 1079.\nChange in financial condition or needs of parents or children as ground for modification of decree for child support payments. 89 ALR2d 7.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 17 February 1995 by Judge David A. Leech in Pitt County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 1996.\nPitt County Legal Department, by Associate County Attorney Pamela Weaver Best and Staff Attorney Amy K. Cooney; and R. Erika Churchill; for plaintiff-appellee.\nW. Gregory Duke for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0702-01",
  "first_page_order": 738,
  "last_page_order": 742
}