Degroot v. Degroot, 06-FM-311.

• Decision Date: 03 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06-FM-311.,06-FM-311.
• Citation: 939 A.2d 664
• Parties: Mary Connole DeGROOT, Appellant v. Ernst W. DeGROOT, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

939 A.2d 664

Mary Connole DeGROOT, Appellant v. Ernst W. DeGROOT, Appellee.

No. 06-FM-311.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued September 5, 2007.

Decided January 3, 2008.

Laird Hart, with whom Paul A. Ainsworth, Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellant.

Louis Fireison, with whom Vincent T. Lyon, Bethesda, MD, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, FISHER, Associate Judge, and NEWMAN, Senior Judge.

FISHER, Associate Judge:

Appellee Ernst DeGroot divorced appellant Mary Connole¹ in August 1999 in the District of Columbia. In December 2005, after the parties and their children moved away from the District, Ms. Connole asked the Superior Court to modify the divorce decree to include an order of child support. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because neither the parents nor their children reside in the District.

We hold that the court had continuing subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order for child support. The doctrine of continuing jurisdiction has a long history in the District, and it has been codified. See D.C.Code § 16-914.01 (2007 Supp.). Nothing in the enactment of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act of 1996 ("UIFSA"), see D.C.Code §§ 46-301.01 to 46-309.01 (2001 & 2007 Supp.), altered the power of the court to hear this case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background²

Mary Connole married Ernst DeGroot in November 1984 in the District of Columbia. The couple had two children, both of whom were born here. After living outside of the District for a few years, the family moved back to this jurisdiction, but the parents separated in 1997.

Mr. DeGroot divorced Ms. Connole in August 1999. The divorce decree awarded Ms. Connole "permanent custody" of the couple's minor children, and the Superior Court granted Mr. DeGroot "reasonable rights of visitation." Neither party asked the court to order child support. Rather, the decree provided that "[t]his issue shall remain open [i]f either party elects to seek such relief in the future." Mr. DeGroot's attorney sent a letter to Ms. Connole (who was then Mrs. DeGroot) in April 1999, confirming that the couple had "decided between [them]selves about the arrangements for support."

After the separation, Ms. Connole moved with the children to Maryland; Mr. DeGroot later moved to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Neither Ms. Connole, nor Mr. DeGroot, nor either of the children presently lives in the District.

Mr. DeGroot regularly provided child support to Ms. Connole starting in 1998. Although the amounts varied in the early years after the separation, from February 2000 until September 2004, Mr. DeGroot paid six hundred dollars to Ms. Connole every month. In September 2004, shortly before the older child turned nineteen, Mr. DeGroot unilaterally reduced his child support payments to three hundred dollars per month.

In December 2005, Ms. Connole filed in the Superior Court a Motion to Modify Judgment of Absolute Divorce by Clarifying Clerical Error and Awarding Child Support. Mr. DeGroot opposed the modification, and the Superior Court held a status hearing on February 15, 2006. When it discovered that the parties and the children no longer resided in the District, the trial court raised sua sponte the question of its subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of child support.

After accepting briefs on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court denied the motion to modify judgment, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Mr. DeGroot did not challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person.) Concluding that UIFSA governed its jurisdiction in the matter, the court held that, in order for it "to have jurisdiction to enter a child support order, one of the relevant parties, i.e., the obligee, the obligor, or the children, must reside in the District of Columbia." Because none of these persons resided in the District, the court denied Ms. Connole's motion. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

"The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Therefore, our standard of review is de novo." American University in Dubai v. District of Columbia Education Licensure Comm'n, 930 A.2d 200, 207 n. 17 (D.C.2007).

A. The Doctrine of Continuing Jurisdiction

The District of Columbia long ago accepted "the general doctrine of the courts of the United States . . . that jurisdiction over the custody and support of children in divorce cases is a continuing one. . . ." Demonet v. Burkart, 23 App.D.C. 308, 315 (1904); see also Clark v. Clark, 485 A.2d 621, 622-23 (D.C.1984) (citing prior cases for the proposition that "D.C.Code § 16-914 gives [the] trial court continuing jurisdiction over issues of custody and child support even where the decree is silent as to custody or child support"); Alves v. Alves, 262 A.2d 111, 117 (D.C.1970) ("The jurisdiction acquired by the trial court in a proceeding for divorce is one of continuing jurisdiction over the issues of custody and child support. This is true even though the decree is silent as to custody or child support." (footnotes omitted)); Trotter v. Trotter, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 213, 183 F.2d 997, 997 (1950) ("The continuing jurisdiction of a court of equity in such circumstances [where the divorce decree is silent as to custody and support] to deal with the custody and maintenance of a minor child is well established."); Elkins v. Elkins, 55 App.D.C. 9, 11, 299 F. 690, 693 (1924) ("[I]t has become the established practice in divorce cases for courts, after a final decree for divorce and alimony, to make suitable orders in the same case for the maintenance of the minor children of the parties.").

Mr. DeGroot argues that because the original divorce decree contained no express provision for child support the Superior Court cannot now add one. This is not correct. Continuing jurisdiction includes the power to issue a child support order even though the initial divorce decree is silent on the matter. See Alves v. Alves, 346 A.2d 736, 738 (D.C.1975) ("We do not view the absence of a prior court order as a bar to trial court consideration on the merits of a motion to increase support for the son."); see also Elkins, 55 App.D.C. at 11, 299 F. at 693 ("in cases wherein the decree is simply for divorce, alimony, and custody in the mother, the court may afterwards add an order for the father to furnish maintenance").

Clark dealt with a plaintiff who returned to Superior Court, seeking to reduce arrearages to judgment several years after the court had entered a final judgment for absolute divorce. 485 A.2d at 622. The arrearages had accrued under a separation agreement that had not been incorporated and merged into the judgment for absolute divorce, or ratified by the court in the initial judgment. Id. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to modify the decree, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the original divorce action did not "adjudicate any issue as to support or maintenance and the Final Order was silent as to support and maintenance. . . ." Id. Reversing, this court dealt with the jurisdictional issue by simply reaffirming the "power of the court to make orders for support when the judgment for divorce is silent on support and does not incorporate the separation agreement." Id.

No case of this court suggests that subject matter jurisdiction to issue a support order expires if all the parties have left the jurisdiction. Addressing the issue of continuing jurisdiction to enforce a support order, we have rejected the "view that a court with initial jurisdiction over a question of child support should, without more, lose authority to enforce the decree if both parents move to other jurisdictions." Desai v. Fore, 711 A.2d 822, 825 (D.C.1998). In Desai, the plaintiff asked the Superior Court to enforce a child support order after all the parties had moved away from the District. Id. at 823. The Superior Court concluded that its "jurisdiction was not dependent on continued residence of the parties." Id. at 824. This court affirmed, holding that "[t]o conclude otherwise would deprive a court of meaningful ability to enforce its orders when nothing has changed except the residence of one or both parents." Id. at 825.

In Elkins, the mother sought to increase an allowance for maintenance of their child after the father had moved to New Jersey. Although the court granted an increase, the father failed to comply, and he later challenged the jurisdiction of the court. Discussing both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals concluded that "the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. . . ." 55 App. D.C. at 10-11, 299 F. at 692-94. The trial court had acquired jurisdiction when the suit was begun, and "[t]hat jurisdiction continued so long as was necessary to make effective the court's orders and decrees in the determination of the [custody, care, and maintenance of the child.]" Id. at 10, 299 F. at 693.

Mr. DeGroot acknowledges that he "has not challenged the personal jurisdiction of the court regarding modifying the divorce decree." Instead, he asserts that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to modify that judgment by adding an order for child support. He suggests that Elkins addressed only an issue of personal jurisdiction. As we have indicated, however, the court discussed principles of continuing subject matter jurisdiction, not simply personal jurisdiction. Elkins, 55 App.D.C. at 11, 299 F. at 693. Even if Desai is properly understood as dealing only with enforcement, not amplification, of a court order, Mr. DeGroot offers no reason why its underlying principles should not guide us here. To the contrary, we find the court's reasoning enlightening: "[W]e can find no viable public interest to support [the] view that a court with initial jurisdiction over a question of...