Richardson v. Richardson
Opinion
•
,,:;� SLu� .Lu C r<.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 20/li ;!PP- 3 P/I 3:
1
2 Domestic Case No. DM0361-01 3 DARIUS ABDUL RICHARDSON, 4 Plaintiff. 5 DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for a Short Enlargement of Time 6 VS. Re: Child Support Arrears Calculations 7
8 JEAN LORRAINE RICHARDSON, et al. 9 Defendants. 10
INTR ODUC TION
11
12 This matter came before the Honorable Katherine A. Maraman on Plaintiff Darius
13 Richardson's Motion for a Short Enlargement of Time to October 21 Re: Child Support Arrears 14 Calculations, filed October 3, 2013. Attorney Daniel J. Berman represents Darius. Defendant 15 Jean Richardson is pro se. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments, and legal 16
17 authorities presented by both parties, the court hereby issues this Decision and Order
18 DENYING the Darius's motion. 19 BACKGROUND
20 On December 17, 2012, the court entered an order giving the parties until January 17, 21 2013 to submit proof of payments of child support expenses incurred from August 1, 2008 unti 22
23 December 31, 2012. During the August 17, 2012 hearing, the court ordered the parties to submi t
24 proof of payments by October 11, 2013 of child support expenses incurred from January 1, 2013 25 until September 30, 2013.
26 On October 3, 2013, Darius filed a motion for enlargement of time to be able to submi 27 expense receipts for piano lessons that were incurred from 2008 through 2012 totaling $8,148
He claims that after reviewing the court's proposed Decision and Order for Arrears, he "wa 1
2 alerted to the need for contact with witness Piano Teacher Ms. Karen Ives .... " to be able t
3 prove he had incurred the expenses. 4 Jean opposed Darius' motion and cited this court's December 17, 2012 order which 5 imposed a deadline of January 17, 2013 for the submission of such documents.
6
In his reply, Darius argues that the court should consider the piano lessons expense 7
8 because it would prejudicial not to. He claims that he is entitled to a trial on the merits of the 9 child support arrears calculation and that he is being denied due process if denied that right. H 10 argues that because no trial has been scheduled, he should not be bound to the January 1 11 deadline. In his conclusion, Darius requests a trial setting on the merits. He also requests in the 12
13 alternative that if request for trial is denied, then the court to consider his October 3 request t
14 enlarge time for the submission for piano lessons expenses. 15 DISCUSSION
16 A. Request for Enlargement of Time 17 No good cause exists for this court to grant Darius's request for enlargement of tim 18
19 because Darius was given ample time to submit his expense receipts for the piano lessons. The
20 court, in its December Order, required the parties to submit record of payments from August 21 2008, through December, 2012, in support of the children. See Dec. & Order at 7, 10 (Dec. 17, 22 2012). "These payments may include payments for court-ordered support, health care, medic 23
insurance, extra-curricular activities, school tuition, fees and books and household interne 24
25 connections." Id. The record was due thirty days after issuance of the Order - January 16, 2013 26 Id. If Darius needed more time to prepare his submission or to obtain the necessar y 27 documentation to establish that he had paid for the piano lessons that were listed i n hi s declaration, he should have made such a request prior to the January 16 deadline. At the very 1
2 least, Darius could have mentioned in his declaration (which included a summary of expense
3 See and also lists piano lessons) that heDecl.
neededofmore
Darius
timeRichardson
to obtain proof(Jan. 16, 2013).
of payments for the pianlessons, but he did not.
4
5 It is worth noting that Darius previously had the opportunity during prior evidentiar)
6
7 hearings to present evidence regarding his contributions towards the children's' piano lessons
8 See Hearing Minutes , DM-361-01 (Dec. 15, 2010; Dec. 16, 2010; Jan. 7, 2011; Jan. 24, 2011
9 Feb. 11, 2011). Indeed, the issue of expenses for piano lessons was specifically brought up at the 10 very first session of the evidentiary hearing and several times thereafter. See, e.g. Hearin 11 Minutes at 2:57:22; 3:00:41 PM (Dec. 15, 2010); Hearing Minutes at�3:25:35�PM�(Jan.�7,�2011)• 12
13 Hearing Minutes at 3:24:16 PM (Feb 11, 2011).
14 Thus, the deadline imposed no unreasonable burden on Darius, and this court does no 15 find good cause to disturb its previous order requiring the parties to submit proof of payments b 16 January 16, 2013.
17 B. Procedural Due Process 18
19 Darius further argues that, notwithstanding the court's discretion to decline enlargement
20 he has been denied his procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Constitution because 21 he entitle him to a full trial on the issue of arrears. These assertions are incorrect.
22 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provides that certain 23
24 substantive rights-life, liberty, and property-cannot be deprived except pursuant t
25 constitutionally adequate procedures. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541
26 42, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 1493 (1985). This protection extends to the determination and enforcemen 27 of child support obligations. See e.g., Weinstein v. Albright, 261 F.3d 127, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)1
Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 143 P.3d 571, 574-75 (Wash. 2006). However, this standard is b 1
2 no means a guarantee of a full trial following any deprivation. "Due process is a flexible concep
3 and a determination of what process is due, or what notice is adequate, depends upon th e 4 particular circumstances involved." Bliek v. Palmer 102 F.3d 1472, 1475 (8th Cir.1997) (citing 5 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). In general, di e 6
7 opportunity for hearing minimally stringent appropriate requirements to the nature are satisfied ofasthe so long case." Loudermill, a deprivation 470by is preceded U.S. 532and
notice a
8 9 541(citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 65 10 (1950)); see also Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, (1971).
11 In evaluating the procedure necessary for due process, statutory mandates and case law 12
13 have determined there is a substantial public policy interest in swiftly providing support fo
14 children. 5 GCA § 34105 (determining "public policy in favor of...having parents support thei 15 children"); Duranceau v. Wallace, 743 F.2d 709, 711 (9th Cyr. 1984) (when weighing du 16 process requirements, "[i]t is hard to imagine a more compelling state interest than the support o 17 its children"). This societal interest led federal law to instruct that child support matters b 18
19 subject to "[e]xpedited administrative and judicial procedures[.]" 42 U.S.C.A. § 666; see als
20 Guam R. Exp. Process 3.1 ("Expedited Process means administrative or expedited judicial 21 processes or both which increase effectiveness and meet processing times specified in 43 CFR 22 (b)(2) or its progeny. and under which the presiding officer is not a judge of the court."). In light 23
24 of the significant interest in fast and efficient resolution of child support disputes, courts have
25 held that imposing support obligations does not violate due process so long as it follows "some
26 form of an evidentiary hearing[.]" Walters v. Weiss, 392 F.3d 306, 315 (8th Cir. 2004).
In this case, there can be no doubt that Darius was provided the appropriate procedural 1
2 due process. As discussed above, this court held an extensive evidentiary hearing spanning five
3 separate days with regard to the proper calculation of child support arrears. See Hearing Minutes 4 DM-361-01 (Dec. 15, 2010; Dec. 16, 2010; Jan. 7, 2011; Jan. 24, 2011; Feb. 11, 2011)
5 Additionally, the court held another hearing on August 2012 and provided parties the opportunit y 6
7 for informal meetings with the Law Clerk assigned to the case. Despite the constitution
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Richardson v. Richardson (Richardson v. Richardson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.