In the Matter of Janice Johnson and Mark Johnson

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed orders addressing a divorced father's child-support and college-education obligations. The court held that preexisting orders requiring support during full-time college attendance were not automatically terminated by later statutory amendments, but that the trial court could modify the obligation to distinguish child support from college contributions. The court also upheld termination of the child-support obligation, dismissal of the mother's cross-petition, and a separate college-contribution arrangement.

Holdings

1. RSA 461-A:14, IV did not automatically terminate the husband's obligation to pay support while a daughter was enrolled full-time in college because the obligation arose from orders issued before the statutory amendment and the amendment applied prospectively only.
2. The husband's continuing payment was not transformed into an exclusive college-expense contribution subject to restrictions limiting expenses to tuition, books, room, board, directly related fees, or particular payment recipients.
3. The husband was entitled to petition for modification because the earlier orders conflated child support with college contributions, contrary to the clarification in Jacobson & Tierney that the two obligations are distinct.
4. The trial court retained authority to examine the parties' circumstances anew, distinguish the college contribution from child support, and order contributions toward college expenses under the original divorce decree.
5. The wife failed to show that the trial court's decision was an unsustainable exercise of discretion or unsupported by the evidence, particularly because she proceeded without a transcript.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory amendment governing the duration of child-support obligations automatically terminated the husband's obligation when the children turned eighteen or graduated from high school, notwithstanding pre-amendment orders requiring support during full-time college enrollment.
2. Whether the husband could obtain modification of the college-related obligation based on the clarification that child support and college contributions are distinct obligations.
3. Whether the trial court properly terminated the child-support obligation, established a separate college contribution, and dismissed the wife's cross-petition to modify child support.
4. Whether the wife demonstrated that the trial court's modification order was an unsustainable exercise of discretion or unsupported by the evidence.

Disposition

affirmed