Valdez v. Valdez

Opinion

I '

F .

i ? 1L%~7il§

a.. Lf __

¥§§f;'2*. GCJLQQ1

F @U.£

2:§ t:

Ll! .\ l :\ '?'°

tT»**El2*:fé ? CG~év~ 1

a Ft ..

cfi~- ·.~•f~~-

.i;.__....,,.._

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

COURT OF

OF GUAM

GUAM

EULALIA W.

w. VALDEZ

VALDEZ nka

na EULALIA W.

w. Domestic Case Domestic Case No. DM0044-13 CORNIELLE,

Plaintiff,

vs. vs. DECISION DENYING DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TERMINATE CHILD MOTION

PETERNILO L. VALDEZ,

VALDEZ, SUPPORT ORDER

Defendant.

This matter came This matter came before

before the Honorable Dana A.

A. Gutierrez on March 6, 2025 for a motion

hearing on Motion to Terminate Motion to Terminate Child ChildSupport

Support Order

Order and Memorandum of

and Memorandum of Points and Authorities Authorities

("Motion"),filed ("Motion"), byDefendant filedby PeterniloL.L.Valdez DefendantPetemilo Valdez("Defendant").

("Defendant").Present

Presentatat the

the hearing via

via Zoom

Zoom

were Defendant

Defendantwith

withcounsel

counselAttorney

AttorneyGeorge

GeorgeValdes;

Valdes,Plaintiff

PlaintiffEulalia

EulaliaW.W.Cornielle

Comielle("Plaintiff')

("Plaintiff")

with counsel

counsel Attorney Daron

Daron Berman,

Berman; and

and Assistant Attorney General General Fred

Fred Nishihira

Nishihira appearing

appearing

on on behalf of

ofthe

the Government

Government of

of Guam

Guam in

in person.

person. Upon review of

ofthe

the filings

filings ininthis

this matter

matter and

and

applicable Guam

Guam law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion.

Motion.

BACKGROUND

The parties were previously previously married

married and sharethree

and share threesons,

sons,Liam

LiamTristen

TwisterWhite

WhiteValdez,

Valdez, Ezra

Byron White Byron White Valdez,

Valdez,and

andJose

Jose White

WhiteValdez. Mot.atat1.1.A11 Valdez.Mot. All three three sons

sons have since reached the age

ofmajority, of majority, with

withLiam

Liambeing

being29,

29,Ezra

Ezra27,

27,and

and Jose

Jose the

the youngest at 18

18 years

years old.

old.

April 4, On April 4, 2013,

2013, the

the Honorable

Honorable Judge

Judge Michael J. Bordello Michael J. Bordallo signed signed an

an Interlocutory

Interlocutory

Judgment of Divorce which incorporated Divorce which incorporated the the parties'

parties' Divorce

Divorce and

and Property

Property Settlement

Settlement Agreement

Agreement

DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TO TERMINATE

TERMINATE CHILD

CHILD SUPPORT

DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13,' Eulalia W W. Valdez vs. Peternilo

Valdez vs. Peternilo L. Valdez

Agreement"),

("Settlement Ag and aa Final reement"), and Final Decree Decree of

ofDivorce

Divorcethat

that incorporated

incorporated the

the Interlocutory

Interlocutory

Judgment of Divorce, Divorce, and thereby,

thereby, the

theSettlement

SettlementAgreement. SeeFinal Agreement.See FinalDecree Decreeof

ofDivorce

Divorce (April

(April

4, 2013).

In relevant In relevant part, part, the Settlement Agreement states:

Agreement states:

The parties The parties agree that that the

the Defendant

Defendant shall provide to shall provide to the

the Plaintiff

Plaintiff Five Hundred

Hundred

Dollars ($500.00) Dollars ($500.00) per month month pe per cchild in cchild hild in hild ssupport

upport forfor the

the ssupport

upport andand

maintenance of maintenance of the parties[sic]

the parties [sic]minor

minorchild

childJose

JoseValdez

Valdezuntil

untilheheturns

Tums 2222

....

....

Additionally, Additionally, the Defendant shall the Defendant shall be responsible for be responsible the parties for the [sic] minor parties [sic] minor

school tuition and costs

children's school costs until until they

they reach

reach the

the age

age of

of 22

22 or graduate

graduate from

from

college with college with aa bachelors' degree, degree, whichever

whichever occurs

occurs first.

first.

Settlement Agreement Agreement (Mar. 26, 2013).

On August On August 19, 19, 2024,

2024, Defendant left Guam as as part of his employment employment with

with the

the federal

federal

government and now government and now resides resides in

in Davis,

Davis, California.

California. Declaration

Declarationof

ofPeternilo

Petemilo L.

L. Valdez

Valdez ("Deel.

("Deal.

Peternilo") ,i 11 Petemi1o")1[ 11 (Nov. 15, 2024).

(Nov. 15, 2024). As

As aa result

result of

ofthe

the relocation,

relocation, Defendant

Defendantstates

states that

that his salary

salary has

has

been been reduced by approximately approximately 17%,

17%, or

oraa$19,000

$19,000 decrease

decrease in

in income.

income. Id. ,i 12. Furthermore, Id. 1112. Furthermore, he he

states that states that California state taxes California state taxes are are higher

higher than

than Guam's,

Guard's, further

further reducing

reducing his net income.

income. Id.

Defendant also Defendant also states states that

that he

he "anticipated

"anticipated that

thatour

oursons

sonswould

would attend

attendcollege

college on

on Guam,"

Guam,"

and did and did not not expect expect to

to pay

pay off-island tuition costs.

off-island tuition Id. ,i costs. Id. 1]6. The parties'

6. The son, Jose youngest son,

parties' youngest Jose now now lives

lives

in in Indiana Indiana and and attends Purdue University.

attends Purdue University. Jose's Jose's current annual expenses current annual expenses at at Purdue

Purdue University

University as

as

aa non-resident non-resident total totalapproximately

approximately $48,184,

$48,]84, which

which is

is higher

higher than Defendant's anticipated than Defendant's anticipated $10,379 $10,379

annual cost annual cost of of attending

attending the University ofGuam University of Guamasasan anin-state

in-state resident.

resident. Id. ,i

Id. 1]8.

On On November November15,

15,2024,

2024,Defendant

Defendantfiled

filedthe

theMotion

Motionarguing

arguingthat

thataasubstantial

substantial and

and material

change in circumstances change circumstances justifies justifies termination

termination of

of his

his monthly

monthly $500

$500 child support

support obligation for

for

Jose. Defendant Jose. Defendant argues argues that

that the

the arrangement

arrangementin

in the

the Settlement

SettlementAgreement

Agreement was

was based

based on the

the

understanding that understanding that the thechildren

childrenwould

would remain

remain in

in the

the custody andcare

custody and careof

ofthe

thePlaintiff

Plaintiff Mot. at 4.

Mot. at 4.

DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TERMINATE CHILD TERMINATE C HI SUPPORT

DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13; Eulalia W W Valdez

Valdez vs.

vs. Peternilo L. Valdez

Peterni/o L. Valdez

Since Jose is no longer living living with

with Plaintiff

Plaintiffand

and Defendant

Defendant is now covering covering Jose's

Jose's off-island

off-island

expenses, he argues

educational expenses, argues that thatcontinued

continued support

support payments

paymentsto

toPlaintiff longer serves Plaintiff no longer serves as

child support child support and and would instead "constitute an an increase

increase in

in discretionary

discretionary spending

spending to

to [Plaintiff],"

[Plaintiff],"

and amount amount to toaa"windfall."

"windfalL" Id.

Id.

On December 11, 11, 2024,

2024, the

theOffice

Office of

of the

the Attorney

Attorney General

General("OAG"), filed an ("OAG"), filed an Opposition Opposition

to the to the Motion to to Terminate

Terminate Child

Child Support ("Opposition"). 1 The OAG Support Order ("Opposition").1 A states that the states the

language in the Settlement language Settlement Agreement Agreement is

is "clear and unambiguous"

unambiguous" in

in regard

regard to Defendant's

Defendant's

obligations. Opp. at 1. Additionally, the OAG Additionally, the OAGargues arguesthat

that the

the Court

Court should "review the matter "review the matter as

as

a Motion for Deviation Motion for Deviationrequiring requiring the

the Defendant

Defendant to

to submit

submit his Financial

Financial Declaration

Declaration of

of income and

expenses." Id. at 2. expenses."

Plaintiffdid Plaintiff did not not file

fileany

anybriefing,

briefing,but

butstated

statedatatthe

themotion

motionheading

hearing that

that she

she "supports

"supports the

Entry at

Government's position." Min. Entry a.m. (Mar. 6, 2025).

at 10:06 a.m.

On On December December 20, 2024,

2024, Defendant

Defendantfiled

filed his

his Reply

Reply to

to Opposition

Opposition to

to Motion

Motion to

to Terminate

Child Support Order Child Support Order("Reply").

("Reply").

The Court The Court held held aa motion

motion hearing

hearing on

on March

March6,6,2025

2025and

andtook

tookthe

the matter

matter under advisement.

DISCUSSION

ultimate goal

The ultimate goal in in any

any child

childsupport

support case is to

case is to protect

protect the

the best

best interests

interests of the children.

of the children.

Guerrero Moylan, 2002 Guam Guerrero v. Moylan, 18 at1]16.

Guam18 "if 16. "Unless "Unless otherwise limited by statute, courts are vested

with with discretion discretionto to set

set child

childsupport

supportininthe

the amounts

amounts necessary

necessary to

to effectuate

effectuate that purpose." Id.

Id.

Modification Modification of of child

child support provisions isis governed support provisions governedby by Guam

Guam law

law at

at 55 GCA

GCA §34121,

§34121,

11 On On August 10, 2023, the 10, 2023, theOAG

OAG entered its appearance entered its thiscase 'mthis

appearancein caseasas"attorney "attorneyofrecord

of recordfor

forGuam

Guam...

... for

the sole purpose purpose ofof providing providing child

child support

support enforcement services under Federal and Guam law."

services under Federal and Guam law." Entry ofEntry of Appearance (Aug. 10, 2025).

(Aug. I 2025).

DECISION AND AND ORDER

ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TO TERMINATE CHILD SUPPORT TERMINATE CHILD

DM0044-l Eulalie DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdezvs.

W. Valdez vs. Peternilo L. Valdez Valdez

which provides: which

The provisions The provisions of ofany

any order

order respecting

respecting maintenance or support support may

may be

be modified

modified

only as to only as to installments installments accruing

accniing subsequent to

to the

themotion

motionfor

formodification

modification and

and only

only

upon showing of aa substantial substantial and

and material

materialchange

changeofofcircumstances . . .... The circumstances

Superior of Guam Superior Court of Guam shall shall have

have the

the authority

authority to

to modify

modify any

any order,

order, award,

award,

stipulation, or stipulation, or agreement as to agreement as to child

child support (whether

(whether or not

not merged or integrated

into a decree of of divorce upon a showing of divorce or separation) up of substantial or material change in circumstances.

5 GCA GCA §§34121 34121 (emphasis added).

added).

The moving The moving party party bears

bears die

the burden

burden to

to establish

establish aa substantial

substantial and

and material

material change

change of

of

circumstances. Lenser circumstances. v. Lenser, Lanser v. 2003 Gua m 114 Lanser, 2003 (citations 4 (cita tion s omitted). is eerror omitted ). "I t is rro r to change the

amount of of support where there there is

is no

no evidence

evidence submitted

submitted to

to show

show a change in

in circumstances." Id.

(citations omitted).

Additionally,"[w]hile Additionally, "[w]hilecontract contractprinciples

principlesare appliedtotosettlement areapplied settlementagreements, agreements, courts

courts are

are

unanimous in unanimous in concluding concludingthat

that parents

parents cannot by agreement agreement limit

limit or divest a court

court of

of its

its discretion

discretion

in setting in setting child child support."

support." Moy 2002 Guam Moylan, 2002 Guam 18

18 atat 1]

'I) 24 (citations

( omitted). "An

omitted). agreement

"An agreement

purporting to purporting to limit limit the

the court's

court's ability

ability to

to achieve

achieve that goal is

that goal is void as against void as against public

public policy."

policy." Id.

Id.

(citing Lusty (citing Lusby v.

v. Lusby, 75 CaLRptr.2d

Lusby, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 263, 263, 269,

269, 64

64 CaLApp.4th

Cal.App.4th 459,

459, 471

471 (Ct.App.1998)

(Ct.App.1998) ("the

("the

court in child court child support support proceedings, to the the extent

extent permitted

permitted by

by the

the child

child support

support statutes,

statutes, must be

permitted to permitted to exercise exercise the

the broadest

broadest possible discretion discretion in order

order to achieve

achieve equity

equity and

and fairness

fairness in

in

these most sensitive and these and emotional emotional cases.")

cases.")

I. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement Can Can Be

Be Modified

Modified

At the March At the March 6, 6, 2025

2025 hearing,

hearing, the

the OAG argued that the

OAG argued the "parties "poNies should stick by

by their

their own

own

agreement," and that agreement," that the the Settlement

SettlementAgreement

Agreement "cannot

"cannot be modified unless both modified unless both parties parties agree

agree to

it." Min. Entry it." Min. Entry at at 10:13

10: 13 a.m. (Mar. 6,6, 2025).

am. (Mar. OAGalso TheOAG

2025). The alsoinsisted insistedthat

that the

the proper

proper procedure

procedure was

to hear the the matter as as aamotion

motion for

for deviation for this

deviation for this case.

case. Id. at

at 10:18

10: 18 a.m.

55

DEcIé1on DECISION AND AND ORDER DENYING MOTION ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD

CHILD SUPPORT

SUPPORT

DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13; W. Valdez Eulalia W Valdez vs.

vs. Peternilo L. Valdez

The Court Court disagrees. Under 55 GCA §§34121, disagrees. Under 34121, the the Superior

Superior Court

Court of

ofGuam

Guam retains

retains the

the

authority to authority to modify "any order, modify "any order, award, award, stipulation,

stipulation, or

or agreement" support, even agreement" concerning child support, even

when "merged or integrated "merged or integrated into into aa decree

decree of

ofdivorce

divorceororSeparation"

separation"as

as isis the

the case

case here. This

This statute

statute

modification independent

expressly permits modification ofthe independent of the parties'

parties' mutual

mutual consent

consent upon

upon proof

proofsubstantial

substantial

and material material change change in

in the

the Defendant's circumstances.

Defendant's circumstances.

Additionally, Guam law recognizes recognizes the importance of the importance of"fair

"fairand

and equitable support

support orders"

orders"

between between parents and yet parents and yet allows allows courts to

to intervene

intervene on

on behalf

behalf of

of the

the child's

child's best

best interest.

interest.55GCA

GCA §

34105(a). This 34l05(a). This includes, includes, but

but is

is not

not limited

limited to, the Court's

to, the Court's discretion discretion "to

"to move

move to

to modify

modify existing

existing

[child support] [child order up support] order up or or down

down as

asthe

thecircumstances

circumstancesand

and equity

equity demand

demand ...."

.... " 55 GCA

GCA §§ 34105

34105

(a)(4). This (a)(4). language supports This language supports the the Court's ability to

Court's ability to reevaluate reevaluate support

support obligations

obligations where

where

warranted by changes warranted by changes in in income,

income, expenses, special needs expenses, special of the needs of the child,

child, or

or other

other relevant

relevant factors.

factors.

See Thurston See v. Pinkstaff, Thurston v, 292 Ark.

Pinkstaj 292 Ark. 385,

385, 389,

389, 730

730 S.W.2d

S.W.2d 239,

239, 241

241 (1987)

(1987) ("In considering

considering the

the

amount to to be contributed for child child support,

support, the court should consider the needs of the children, the

assets of each parent, assets of parent, their their respective

respective ages, earning

earning capacities, incomes :Md indebtedness, state and indebtedness, state of of

health, future prospects health, future prospects and andany

any other

other factors

factorswhich

which will

will aid the court

court in

in reaching

reaching aa just

just and

and

equitable equitable result.")(cited in Lenser, cited in Lanser, 2003

2003 Guam

Guam 14

I n.3),

n.3); See Moylan, 2002

See Moylan, 2002 Guam

Guam 18

18 at

at 1116 ("An

16 ("An ,r

award of award of child child support support is

is reviewed

reviewed for

for an

an abuse discretion, keeping abuse of discretion, keeping in in mind

mind the

the best

best interests

interests of

of

the children.").

children?) .

Furthermore, althoughthe Furthermore, although theOAG OAG contends that aa motion contends that motion for deviation deviation is the

the proper

proper

mechanism here, here, the

the OAG

OAG does not explain why a deviation as opposed opposed to

to a modification

modification of

of the

child support agreement would be appropriate in this this case.

case. The child

child support

support ordered by the Court

did did not Child Support not arise from the Child SupportGuidelines, Guidelines,but

buthrough

throughan

anagreement

agreementbetween

betweenthe

the parties

parties that

that

was incorporated into was then incorporated into the theFinal

FinalDecree

Decree of

of Divorce. When

When there

there is

is an

an existing agreement

agreement for

DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TERMINATE

TERMINATE CHILD

CHILD SUPPORT

DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs.

vs. Peternilo L. Valdez

child child support GCA §34121 support obligations, 5 GCA § 34121governs governsmodification

modificationstandards.

standards. The

Theparties

parties are

are seeking

the Court to to reconsider an existing child child support

support obligation

obligationbased

based on

on changes

changes that

that occurred

occurred after

after

the support order was entered.

entered. Defendant requests requests· that

that the

the Court

Court evaluate the request under under the

die

standard of standard of a "substantial "substantial and

and material

material change in

in circumstances."

33

In the absence In absence of of persuasive

persuasive justification

justification for

for using a motion to deviate, deviate, the

the Court

Court shall

shall

apply the of aa "substantial and material change in circumstances."

the standard of See 55 GCA circumstances." See GCA §§ 34121.

34121.

11. II. Defendant endant Has NotNot Submi

Submitted Sufficient

tted Suf Evidence f i ci ent Evi Demonstrate a dence to Demonstrate

Substantial and Material Change Change of

of Circumstances

To demonstrate demonstrate a substantial substantial and

and material

material change

change in

in circumstances,

circumstances, the

the Court

Court not only

considers income considers income but but also

also the

the party's

party's overall

overall financial

financialsituation,

situation,such

suchasasassets,

assets, debts,

debts, and

and gifts.

gifts.

See Moylan, See 2002 Guam 18 Moylan, 2002 18 (citing Petrina v. Petrina, Petrini v. Md. 453 Petrini, 336 Md. 453 (Md.1994))

(Md.1994)) ("[T]here

("[T]here are

are

several considerations several considerations the the trial

trialjudge

judge may

may take

take into

into account

accountin

in deciding

deciding whether

whether to

to include

include aa gift

gin

as income, as income, such such as

as aa parent's

parent'sactual'ability

actual'ability to

topay

paythe child support

thechild supportaward,

award,any

anylack

lackof

of liquidity or

liquidity or

marketability of marketability of aa party's party's assets,

assets, the fact that

that the parent's

parent's take-home is not take-home income is not an an accurate

accurate

reflection of reflection of his or her his or her actual

actualstandard

standardofofliving

living.... "); see

... ."), see also

also In

In re

re Marriage

Marriage of

of Catalano, 204

Catalano, 204

Cal.App.3d 543, CaLApp.3d 543, 555-556 555-556 (1988)

(1988)(trial

(trialcourt

courtabused

abusedits

itsdiscretion

discretion in

in setting

setting child

child support

support that

that

failed to failed to take take into

into account

account father's

father's assets

assets such

such as real property

as real property and

and cars);

cars); see

see also

also Petersen

Petersen v.

v.

Cal. App.

Petersen, 24 Cad. 3d 201, 207 (Ct. App.

App. ad App. 1972)

1972) (trial

(trial court

court abused

abused its discretion by only

considering purchase of new home home and

and increased

increased salary)

salary).

Here, Defendant Here, Defendant asserts asserts that

that aa 17%

17% decrease

decreasein

in salary,

salary, which

which is approximately $19,000 $19,000

annually, constitutes a substantial substantial and

and material

material change in

in circumstances. Deel. ~ 12. His Petemilo 1112.

Deal. Peternilo His

income isis further income further reduced reduced because

because he

he states

states that

that California state taxes California state taxes are are higher

higher than

than Guam's.

Guam's. Id.

Id.

He also He also notes notes the the unanticipated

unanticipated costs

costs of

ofJose's

Jose's out-of-state

out-of-state tuition

tuitioncosts.

costs. Id. ~

Id. 1]6.

77

DECISION AND AND ORDER

ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TERMINATE

TERMINATE CHILD

CHILD SUPPORT

DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs.

vs. Peternilo L. Valdez

Whilethese While these representations representations may

may reflect

reflect aa significant

significant and

and material

material change in

in Defendant's

circumstances, he has

financial circumstances, has not notsubmitted

submittedsufficient

sufficient evidence

evidence to

to support

support aamodification

modification in child

support. For support. does not For example, he does not provide provideiNformation

informationabout

about his

his current

current assets,

assets, liabilities,

liabilities, or

recurring u ning expenses, ns e s , which

whic h would help the

ld he the Co

Court

u rt e evaluate his ooverall v alu ate his financial v e rall financ ial c capacity.

apac ity.

Additionally, there Additionally, there isis no no indication

indicationofofwhether

whetherhe

hehas

has access

access to

to savings,

savings, investment income, or

other resources that thatmay

may offset

offset the impact of his reduced salary or of his or increased expenses.

Moreover, the Moreover, the only only evidence

evidence that

that the Defendant

Defendant provided

provided to

to the

the Court

Court was

was his

his Declaration.

Declaration.

Although declaration can ltho u gh a party's declaration helpful context, can offer helptixl context, courts courts generally

generally require

require some

some

documentation to

corroborating documentation to assess assess whether a change

change is

is both

both substantial Ellis v.

substantial and material. Ellis v.

Ellis, E 2009 WL l l i s , 2009 2999354 (Ct.

WL 2999354 Ohio, 2009)1]34 App. Ohio,

(Ct. App, ,r

2009) 34("[T]h6

("[T]hetrial

trialcourt

courtininthis

this case

case did

did not

not abuse

abuse

its discretion by its discretion by failing failing to

to consider

consider [[a party's] change a party's] in income change in during the income during the pendency ency of

ofthe

the motion

because [he]

[he] did not present present documentation

documentation to

to substantiate

substantiatehis

his alleged

alleged reduction

reduction in

in income at

at

trial."); see triaL"), see In In re

re Marriage of Bucklin, 70 Wash. App. 837, 841 Marriage of 841 (1993)

(1993) (reversing trial

trial court's

court's

finding ofchanged finding of changed circumstances circumstances for

for failure

failure of

ofparty

party to

to produce documentary evidence evidence and "other

sufficient verification" sufficient verification" of of his income."). The Court his income."). Court is is not

not persuaded

persuaded by Defendant's

Defendant's mere

mere

assertions in in his Declaration and requires a stronger showing Declaration and showing of evidence to illustrate of evidence illustrate a substantial substantial

and material change in circumstance.

circumstance.

Finally, the Finally, the Defendant Defendant notes

notes that

that since

since Jose

Joseisisno

nolonger

longerliving

livingwith

with Plaintiff

Plaintiff and Defendant

is now covering is now covering Jose's Jose's off-island

off-islandeducational

educational expenses,

expenses, the continued support the continued support payments payments to

toPlaintiff

Plaintiff

longer serves no longer serves as as child

childsupport

support and

and would

wouldinstead

instead"constitute

"constitutea.n

an increase

increase in

in discretionary

discretionary

spending to spending to [Plaintiff]," and amount [Plaintiff]," and amountto toaa"windfall."

"windfalL" Id.

Id

However, the However, the Settlement Settlement Agreement

Agreement requires

requires the

the Defendant

Defendant to provide support beyond the provide support

ofmajority age of majority and and during

during college.

college. From

Fromwhat

whatthe

theparties

parties have

have provided,

provided, itit is

is unclear

unclear whether the

I i *

DECISION AND

AND ORDER

ORDER DENYING

DENYING MOTION

MOTION TO TERMINATE

TERMINATE CHILD

CHILD SUPPORT

DM0044-l 3; Eulalia DM0044-13; W. Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs.

vs. Peternilo Valdez

Pelernilo L. Valdez

current cu rrent payments

paym ents are

are used

u sed for

for the

the benefit

benefit of

of Jose or are

lose or are indeed

'indeed being

being retained

retained by

by Plaintiff

Plaintiff for other

for other

purposes. purposes. Without information on Without further information on the the use

use of

ofthe

the funds,

funds, the Court

Court cannot

cannot conclude

conclude that

that the

support payments su paym constitute it u t e aa"windfall."

" windfall. ·

as

Therefore, tthe Court

ou is unable to determine whether thee claimed change iis ssufficient ffi to

justify modifying justify modifyingthe

the current

current child

child support

support obligations.

obligations. Accordingly, Accordingly,based

basedon

onthe

thepresent

present record,

Court finds tthat Defendant the Cou has not Defendant has not mmet his bu et his burden

rden tto

o dem onst rat e aa su

demonstrate substantial bst and material

and at

change in circumstances. change circumstances.

CONCLUSION

N LUS

For the foregoing For reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion foregoing reasons, Motion to Terminate

Child Su Chi Support.

SO ORDERED: S O JUN 062025 _JU_N_O~6_20_25__

_

-/ l/`- ~_ .':` ~5?>m_ ,_\~

H( ERREZ RR

Ju sJi»f@'r;drc<\uu » i . /

eaGun'

-.41 Mr: - //r 1 *- : Fri:

6 _ ` "/:2~__ .n_,

» _//, I _,

\