Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State ex rel. Department of Human Resources ex rel. Roye v. Hogg
Citations: 689 So. 2d 131; 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 933Docket: 2950664
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 19, 1996; Alabama; State Appellate Court
The State, representing Kathleen Roye, appeals a trial court ruling that denied child support. The original divorce judgment from 1992 awarded joint custody of four children, with primary residence granted to the father and no child support ordered due to income disparity and the mother's schooling. Subsequent modifications in 1993 and 1994 granted physical custody of two daughters to the mother but did not address child support requests. In 1995, the mother, facing health issues and relying on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), sought further modifications for child support and reimbursement for AFDC payments. The trial court denied all requests, stating the case had been previously heard multiple times. DHR appealed the denial of child support and reimbursement, arguing the court erred by not applying Alabama’s Child Support Guidelines. The guidelines mandate their application in child support actions unless the trial court provides a written justification for deviation. The appellate court noted the trial court's failure to comply with these guidelines and emphasized the necessity of filing standardized income affidavits and child support calculation forms on remand. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for proper adherence to the child support guidelines. The court emphasized that trial courts must adhere to specific guidelines when determining child support, including making necessary factual findings. The father's argument that the 1993 order justifying the lack of child support complies with these guidelines was rejected. The court noted that the 1993 order is not compliant and highlighted significant changes in circumstances, particularly a disparity in income between the parties. The father's gross monthly income is $3,500, while the mother receives $425 in AFDC payments. The court stated that if the trial court had reasons not to award child support, it must provide supporting factual findings. Effective October 4, 1993, Rule 32(B)(9) outlines the calculation of support in split custody situations, requiring specific computations for each parent's obligations. On remand, the trial court is directed to calculate child support according to this rule and provide justification if the guidelines are deemed inequitable. Additionally, the trial court's refusal to order the father to reimburse the state for AFDC payments was addressed. Under Alabama law, a state agency can recover support reimbursement only for amounts set by judgment or agreement. Since the father's obligation has not been established and he has the ability to pay, the Department of Human Resources (DHR) is entitled to full reimbursement for the AFDC payments made for the child in the mother’s custody. The prior judgment was reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in line with these directives. The opinion was authored by Retired Justice Sam A. Beatty, with concurrence from other justices.