McElrath v. Walker
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0459,0459 |
| Citation | 330 S.E.2d 313,285 S.C. 439 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Stanley Robert McELRATH, Respondent, v. Virginia Anne WALKER, Appellant. . Heard |
James D. Jefferies, Greenwood, for appellant.
Stephen D. Baggett, of Burns, McDonald, Bradford, Patrick & Dean, Greenwood, for respondent.
The father, respondent Stanley McElrath, petitioned the family court for an order requiring the mother, appellant Virginia Walker, to contribute to the support of their two minor children. The court ordered the mother to pay $50 a week and she appeals. We affirm as modified.
The parties were formerly husband and wife. They were divorced in April 1980 and the father was awarded custody of the two minor daughters. Two months previously, the parties had agreed to a property settlement and custody agreement which was incorporated in the divorce decree. Neither the agreement nor the decree addressed the issue of child support.
On November 30, 1982, the family court held a hearing on the father's petition for support. The evidence revealed that the daughters were now five and seventeen years old, respectively. The father had remarried and had a nine year old stepson and a seventeen year old stepdaughter.
The evidence further revealed that the father's family's combined monthly expenses totaled $2,199.67 which included a $350 obligation to the father's credit union for three family cars. The father earned net monthly income of $1,354 and his wife earned average net monthly income of $500. She also received $400 monthly support for her two children. Thus, their combined monthly income totaled $2,287. 1
The mother had also remarried. She and her husband had combined monthly expenses of $2,002.90 (which included a $400 obligation of the husband) and combined net monthly income of $2,027. The mother, a secretary, earned net income of $827 a month.
The sole question on appeal is whether the family court abused its discretion in ordering the mother to contribute $50 a week to the support of the children. 2
As antiquated as it now seems, in South Carolina, a mother of children whose father was alive or was capable of supporting them was under no legal obligation to contribute to their support until recently. Scheibner v. Wonderly, 279 S.C. 212, 305 S.E.2d 232 (1983). The applicable statute, Section 14-21-820 of the South Carolina Code of Laws of 1976, provided in relevant part:
(a) A husband declared to be chargeable with the support of his ... children and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for their support a fair and reasonable sum according to his means ....
(b) when the father of a child is dead, is incapable of supporting his child ... the mother of such child is hereby declared to be chargeable with its support and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for its support a fair and reasonable sum.... (emphasis added).
Effective May 1981, Section 14-21-820 was amended to make both the father and the mother primarily liable for their child's support:
A husband or wife declared to be chargeable with the support of his or her ... children, if possessed of sufficient means ... may be required to pay for their support....
The statute now imposes equal support duties on both parents absent pleading and proof that circumstances otherwise warrant. Corley v. Rowe, 280 S.C. 338, 312 S.E.2d 720 (Ct.App.1984). An equal support duty is not synonymous with an identical support payment, however. It is well established that the determination of the amount of support to be ordered must be made in such a way that reflects fairness for all the parties involved. Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975); Murdock v. Murdock, 243 S.C. 218, 133 S.E.2d 323 (1963); Porter v. Porter, 246 S.C. 332, 143 S.E.2d 619 (1965). Fairness requires that the court consider not only the needs of the child but also the abilities of the parents to provide support. Cudd v. Arline, 277 S.C. 236, 285 S.E.2d 881 (1981); Thompson v. Brunson, 283 S.C. 221, 321 S.E.2d 622 (Ct.App.1984).
Accepting as reasonable the expenses listed by the parties on their financial declarations (since the family court did not discount them), we must conclude that the mother lacks the ability to pay $50 a week for child support. Moreover, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ariail v. Ariail
...reasonable sum for their support as may be determined by the family court. S.C.Code of Laws § 20-7-40 (1976); see McElrath v. Walker, 285 S.C. 439, 330 S.E.2d 313 (Ct.App.1985). Here, both parties, as we noted, remained in the marital home and nothing in the record suggests Mr. Ariail was n......
-
West v. West, 1068
...both the father and mother are primarily liable for their child's support. S.C.Code Ann § 20-7-40 (1985); McElrath v. Walker, 285 S.C. 429, 330 S.E.2d 313 (Ct.App.1985). This amount is hardly excessive. The court considered Mrs. West's income and her expenses. We hold there is no abuse of F......
-
Sauls v. Sauls
...the amount of support to be ordered must be made in such a way as to reflect fairness for all the parties involved. McElrath v. Walker, S.C. 330 S.E.2d 313 (Ct.App.1985). Fairness requires that the court consider both the needs of the child and the abilities of the parents to provide suppor......
-
Upchurch v. Upchurch
...child support if the issue was not addressed previously in the separation agreement or the divorce decree. McElrath v. Walker, 285 S.C. 439, 440, 330 S.E.2d 313, 313 (Ct.App.1985). However, when the divorce decree or separation agreement addresses the issue of child support, the petition is......