Introduction

The recent Arizona Court of Appeals opinion in Gelin v. Murray is a “win” for all potential fathers in Arizona.

Prior to this case, there was inconsistent and unsettled case law in Arizona regarding whether a mother could get retroactive child support up to 3 years prior to filing a child support case.

Here is what the Arizona law (statute) says:

(A) Except as provided in section 25-501, subsection F, if a respondent admits parentage or if the issue is decided in the affirmative in an action instituted during the child’s minority, the court shall direct, subject to applicable equitable defenses and using a retroactive application of the current child support guidelines, the amount, if any, the parties shall pay for the past support of the child and the manner in which payment shall be made.

(B) The court shall enter an order for support determined to be due for the period between the commencement of the proceeding and the date that current child support is ordered to begin.  The court shall not order past support retroactive to more than three years before the commencement of the proceeding unless the court makes a written finding of good cause after considering all relevant circumstances, including:

  1. The circumstances, conduct or motivation of the party who claims entitlement to past support in not seeking an earlier establishment of maternity or paternity.

  2. The circumstances, conduct or motivation of the party from whom past support is sought in impeding the establishment of maternity or paternity.

  3. The diligence with which service of process was attempted on the respondent.

Case Facts and Outcome

Here is what happened in the Gelin case.

The mother and father were in a lawsuit to establish paternity. The child was around 4-5 years old at the time the paternity action was filed by the father.

The mother requested that the court establish retroactive child support that the father should have to pay her 3 years prior to the paternity filing per the statute.

Ultimately, after going through hearings, the trial court disagreed and ruled against the mother, citing that the mother took actions to deliberately keep the father out of the child’s life.

Believing that the trial court made a mistake and misinterpreted the law, the mother filed an appeal.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that there was inconsistent case law in the past interpreting the pertinent statute, A.R.S. § 25-809, particularly subsection A and B (cited above).

The mother’s argument on appeal was that the law required that the court award her retroactive child support for 3 years prior to the paternity action being filed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that the Arizona law does not require such a result, and it is discretionary whether a mother will receive retroactive child support prior to the date of filing.

Case Law Established

In sum, here is what the Arizona Court of Appeals held.

The statute, A.R.S. § 25-809 only requires that the court enter child support retroactive up to the date of filing from when the order is entered.

So for example, when a case gets filed to establish paternity and child support there is obviously a time gap between when the case gets filed and when it gets resolved months later and the actual child support order is entered by the court.

In this scenario, the Court of Appeals held that the court is required by law to order child support dating back to the date of filing even though the order itself is not entered for (probably) months after the filing date.

The statute does not require the court to enter a retroactive child support order prior to the date of filing. Additionally, if the court does grant retroactive child support prior to the date of filing and up to 3 years prior, the court is not required to enter written findings.

Based on this ruling, the mother lost her appeal. However, for everyone else, it is significant to note that fathers will not be required necessarily to pay child support prior to the date of filing a child support and paternity action.

If the court were to enter such an order, it is not required to enter written findings in support of its ruling. This could be difficult on fathers. So, all good family law attorneys should seriously consider filing a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, which will require the court to support any retroactive child support ruling (or even for mothers for findings to support a ruling against it).

The statute does require written findings if child support is ordered retroactive beyond 3 years prior to the date of filing.

This is much less common; however, under the statute, the court may order child support retroactive to a time even beyond 3 years prior to the date of filing. However, to do so, the court is required by law to enter a written finding supporting why there is good cause to order support that far back.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Gelin v. Murray case helps put the issue to rest and confirms that the statute, A.R.S. § 25-809 does not require, but may still permit, the court to order child support retroactive prior to the date of filing and up to 3 years prior.

This is a win for fathers in general as there is no longer a sure thing that fathers will be on the hook for child support for 3 years prior to any case being filed.

Now, it is certainly still possible for child support to be ordered retroactive to 3 years or beyond. However, it is simply not a guarantee any longer.

This should put mothers on notice and will likely spur them to greater action to establish paternity and child support on their own. Otherwise, they may miss out on many months or even years of child support that they will never get back.

If you have a paternity and/or child support case and would like some good advice or need help, feel free to contact me here.