William A. Wilson III v. Francesca V. Craig

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed orders modifying child custody and child support, awarding retroactive support, and holding the appellant in civil contempt. The court affirmed the custody modification, the authority to modify support, the retroactive award, and the contempt determination, but reversed and remanded for further consideration of the appellant's business expenses in calculating his income for child-support purposes.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly modified the custody arrangement because the evidence established an unforeseen, substantial, and material change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare, and sole custody with appellee was in the children's best interests.
2. The trial court had authority to modify the child support obligation sua sponte when changed circumstances and the children's welfare warranted an increase.
3. The trial court properly determined that appellant's earning capacity exceeded his claimed salary, but it was required to consider reasonable expenses of operating his law practice in determining his net disposable income.
4. The trial court could make the modified child-support award retroactive to the date the court raised the support issue, provided appellant had notice and a fair opportunity to contest the requested revision.
5. The trial court properly held appellant in civil contempt because clear and convincing evidence established that he willfully failed to pay despite having the ability to satisfy the arrearage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly modified the parties' incorporated custody agreement to award appellee sole legal and physical custody.
2. Whether the trial court had authority to modify child support sua sponte when appellee had not formally petitioned for an increase.
3. Whether the trial court properly calculated appellant's child support obligation and earning capacity without adequately accounting for the operating expenses of his law practice.
4. Whether the trial court could make the modified child support award retroactive when no formal petition for retroactive support had been filed.
5. Whether the trial court properly held appellant in civil contempt for failing to pay retroactive child support when he had the ability to pay.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded