Freeman v. Freeman, 13335.

Citation397 A.2d 554
Decision Date31 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. 13335.,13335.
PartiesKenneth A. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. Foley A. FREEMAN, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

John C. Maginnis, III, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before NEBEKER, HARRIS and FERREN, Associate Judges.

FERREN, Associate Judge:

Kenneth Freeman appeals from a trial court order of February 27, 1978, which (1) continued for 120 days the suspension of a March 16, 1976, order requiring Mr. Freeman to pay $350 in monthly child support, and (2) ordered Mr. Freeman, commencing March 1, 1978, to pay monthly child support at the rate of $50 per week (through the Clerk of the Family Division) until further order of the court. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

Incident to an April 1976 divorce, Kenneth and Foley Freeman stipulated that Mrs. Freeman would have custody of their two minor children and that Mr. Freeman would pay $350 in monthly child support. On January 3, 1977, Mr. Freeman filed a Motion to Suspend or Reduce Support Payments, alleging that although he was earning $24,000 per year at the time of the divorce decree, he was now relying on monthly unemployment compensation benefits of $382.70. On January 25, 1977, the court suspended Mr. Freeman's child support payments for 60 days and ordered him "to actively seek employment" and to maintain records of his efforts for purposes of financial review by the court.

On May 3, 1977, the trial court approved a consent order continuing suspension of the $350 monthly payments for another 120 days but ordering Mr. Freeman, during the interim, to pay $100 per month. The parties submitted to a similar consent order on August 24, 1977, pending a financial review scheduled for February 14, 1978.

At the February 14 hearing, counsel for Mr. Freeman requested continuation of the $100 monthly payment arrangement for an other six months. Counsel for Mrs. Free man objected, arguing that Mr. Freeman, still unemployed, was out of compliance with the court's earlier order directing him actively to seek employment. The court thereupon conducted a financial examination of Mr. Freeman, who testified that he had a masters degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University, that shortly after the divorce and child support order he had quit his $24,000 per year job at University Research Corporation, that he had continued to pay $350 in monthly support payments for awhile out of savings, that he was writing a book ("which is very important to me"), that he more recently had held a janitorial job but had quit after several weeks, and that for the past 5½ months he had made "minimal efforts" to find employment commensurate with his skills, preferring instead to stay home with the new baby of his second marriage while his second wife worked to support the family (earning approximately $24,000 annually).

When the hearing resumed on February 21, 1978, the trial court indicated that the purpose of the financial review was to consider Mr. Freeman's original motion of January 3, 1977, to suspend or reduce support payments. The court made the following findings:

[I]t appear[s] to this Court that defendant, although he currently is not receiving any income by reason of being employed, does provide "baby-sitting" services for the child born of his present marriage which enables his present wife to earn an income of $24,000.00 annually; that upon the basis of the applicable minimum wage law. defendant's "baby-sitting" services are valued at least $400.00 per month; that, the former wife of defendant, who has custody of the minor child[ren] born of her and the defendant, earns $12,000.00 annually as a paralegal; that, pending the financial review ordered herein, an equitable contribution of the defendant to the support of the said minor child[ren] based upon the defendart's "baby-sitting" services and his current wife's income and upon the former wife's income and the said minor child[ren]'s needs, is found to be $50.00 per week.

The court thereupon continued suspension of the March 16, 1976, order for 120 days, ordered Mr. Freeman to "continue his efforts to obtain gainful employment commensurate with his abilities and educational background," and ordered him to pay monthly child support commencing March 1, 1978, at the rate of $50 per week.

II.

Mr. Freeman argues that the trial court erred in imputing babysitting income to him so as to increase his interim support obligation from $100 to $200 per month. We disagree.

In the first place, appellant has the burden of proof on his motion to reduce his monthly child support payments. See Tennyson v. Tennyson, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 264, 266 (1977). He does not argue that there has been a change in the children's needs or in his first wife's ability to provide financial support; thus, he must show...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Moss v. Superior Court (Ortiz)
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1998
    ...in the context of support-related orders to find employment as meritless without discussion or analysis. (See, e.g., Freeman v. Freeman (D.C.1979) 397 A.2d 554, 557, fn. 2 ["This contention has no merit."]; McKenna v. Steen (La.Ct.App.1982) 422 So.2d 615, 618 ["These allegations are so ludi......
  • Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • December 27, 2005
    ...Hicks v. Hicks, 387 So.2d 207 (Ala.Civ.App.1980)(holding that an alimony order does not impose involuntary servitude); and Freeman v. Freeman, 397 A.2d 554 (D.C.1979)(party's contention that child support order directing him to seek gainful employment violated thirteenth amendment held to b......
  • Irby v. Fitz-Hugh, Civ. A. No. 87-0633-R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • May 16, 1988
    ...et al., 178 F.2d 584 (2nd Cir.1949) (statute proscribing secondary boycott as an unfair labor practice in constitutional); Freeman v. Freeman, 397 A.2d 554 (D.C.1979) (ordering the parent to pay child support and to seek gainful employment does not violate the The Thirteenth Amendment has a......
  • Brown v. US
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 1990
    ...if he is not, that he intentionally reduced his earning capacity. Bearden, supra, 461 U.S. at 669, 103 S.Ct. at 2071; Freeman v. Freeman, 397 A.2d 554, 556 (D.C.1979). These considerations may make a probationer's compliance with such a condition difficult to evaluate, especially where, as ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT