Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1498 September Term, 2000

RENO EDWARD LACY, SR.

v. LAURA MAUREEN ARVIN

Hollander, Eyler, Deborah S., Getty, James S. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: September 10, 2001

In this case, we must determine whether a contractual agreement between separated parents by which the non-custodial parent pays child support without the compulsion of a court order can be a "preexisting reasonable child support

obligation," under Md. Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.) section 12-201(d)(1) of the Family Law Article ("FL"), so as to be subtracted from the paying parent's actual income in

calculating a child support award for another of his children, by a different mother. We conclude that it can be.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Laura Maureen Arvin, the appellee, sued Reno Edward Lacy, Sr., the appellant, to establish paternity and for child support. After the parties

stipulated to paternity, the child support issues were tried by the court. From an amended order establishing paternity and

awarding child support, Lacy appeals, presenting four questions for review, which we have reworded: I. Did the trial court err in failing to incorporate the appellant's preexisting reasonable child support obligations in calculating child support under the guidelines? Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to deviate downward from the child support guidelines? Did the trial court err by including in the child support award a day care expense that the appellee was not actually incurring at the time of trial?

II.

III.

IV.

Did the trial court err in calculating child support by failing to credit the appellant for the health insurance expense of the minor child?

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In March of 1994, Arvin and Lacy had a brief relationship. Nine months later, on December 21, 1994, Robin Nicolette Lacy, the child in this case, was born. On May 24, 2000, when Robin was five years old, Arvin brought suit against Lacy in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, to establish paternity and for child support. The

parties consented to genetic testing, which showed that there was a 99.99% likelihood that Lacy was Robin's biological father. Trial commenced on July 24, 2000. At the outset of the

proceedings, the parties stipulated to paternity and to their gross monthly incomes. The court then took testimony from Lacy,

Arvin, and two witnesses called by Lacy. Arvin testified that her work schedule necessitates day care services for Robin from Monday through Saturday morning. At the

time of trial, she was paying a relative who is not a licensed day care provider $90 per week to watch Robin. She previously

had been paying for Robin to attend a licensed day care program called Open Door. She had to remove Robin from that program

-2-

when the school year ended, however, because the program's fee had increased to $110 per week for the summer and she already was behind in her payments to the facility. Arvin explained

that if she had kept Robin at Open Door, which operates Monday through Friday, she still would have had to employ her relative on Saturdays, at a rate of $20, and her total day care expense thus would have been $130 per week. Arvin further testified

that if she were awarded child support, she would re-enroll Robin at Open Door. Lacy testified that he is married to Catherine Lacy, but they have been separated since 1994. He and Catherine have

three minor children who are older than Robin and who live with their mother.1 Ever since he and Catherine separated, Lacy has

been paying Catherine $400 every other week for support for the children. The sum is paid in cash, which Lacy withdraws from an According to Lacy,

ATM machine after depositing his paycheck.

he and Catherine agreed to the $400 figure because that is the amount that Catherine estimated was necessary to pay her bills.

Neither Catherine nor Lacy expressly testified that the number of minor children they have together is three. Nevertheless, that number was implicit in their testimony, was stated by Lacy in his closing argument to the court, was not disputed by Arvin, and is acknowledged by the parties in their briefs in this Court. -3-

1

There is no court order directing Lacy to pay that sum or any sum in child support for his three children with Catherine. Lacy further testified that he and a woman named Dawn M. Griffin Hess have a minor child for whom he pays support of $100, every other week. He also makes that payment in cash, Lacy has been

after withdrawing the sum from an ATM machine.

paying child support to Dawn every other week for 11 years. There also is no court order directing Lacy to pay the $100 biweekly sum, or any sum, for child support for that child. Catherine corroborated Lacy's testimony about his child support payments to her. She stated that she and Lacy had been

separated for five years continuously and that he had been paying the $400 bi-weekly sum throughout that period. Dawn also

testified and corroborated the $100 bi-weekly payments that Lacy makes to her for their child. At the close of the evidence and after hearing argument of counsel, the trial court ordered Lacy to pay $615.39 per month to Arvin for child support for Robin. The court calculated that

sum using the child support guidelines and the stipulated gross monthly earnings figures of the parties. The court ruled that

Lacy's payments to Catherine and Dawn for support for his other four children constitute voluntary payments, not "obligations" to be subtracted in calculating his adjusted actual income under

-4-

the guidelines. the court did

Also, in arriving at its child support award, not deviate downward from the guidelines on

account of those payments. The court included a day care expense of $110 per week in its child support award. When the court was calculating the

child support award, it asked Lacy whether he was making any payments for health insurance premiums for Robin. (Lacy, who

was unrepresented at trial, had not given any testimony about health showing insurance.) that he was In response, $25 Lacy per produced period a pay stub

paying

pay

for

health

insurance for his entire family, including all his children. Lacy then stated, in further response to questions from the court, that he did not incur any additional charge for including Robin on his health insurance policy. The court did not credit

Lacy for any health insurance costs for Robin in calculating the child support award. On July 27, 2000, the court issued an earnings withholding order for the monthly child support award of $615.34. The court

then issued an ?Amended Order" setting forth in detail the rulings it made at the conclusion of the July 24, 2000 trial. Lacy noted a timely appeal.

DISCUSSION
I -5-

When determining child support, the circuit court must use the child support guidelines set forth in sections 12-201 et seq. of the Family Law Article. FL

Download Lacy v. Arvin.pdf

Maryland Law