This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A minor child, living independently due to domestic violence concerns in her mother's household, petitioned for emancipation under the Emancipation of Minors Act (EMA). The district court granted emancipation but reserved the minor's right to receive child support from her mother. The mother ceased providing support two years prior to the emancipation. The minor later sought both pre- and post-emancipation child support under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, March 9, 2007: Granted the minor's emancipation petition but reserved her right to receive child support from her mother (para 4).
- District Court, April 26, 2007: Entered a final emancipation order (para 4).
- District Court, Date N/A: Denied the mother's motion under Rule 1-060(B)(4) to void the emancipation order for lack of jurisdiction (para 4).
- District Court, Date N/A: Awarded the minor pre- and post-emancipation child support under the UPA (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the district court lacked authority to award post-emancipation child support under the UPA and that the emancipation order reserving the minor's right to support was void. She also contended that the UPA was improperly applied as her parentage was not in dispute (paras 6, 10, 27).
- Appellee (Daughter): Asserted that the EMA allowed the court to reserve her right to child support post-emancipation and that the UPA was an appropriate mechanism to seek retroactive child support for the pre-emancipation period (paras 6, 19, 27).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in awarding post-emancipation child support to an emancipated minor under the UPA and EMA.
- Whether the district court properly awarded pre-emancipation child support under the UPA (paras 6, 27).
Disposition
- The award of post-emancipation child support was reversed (para 34).
- The award of pre-emancipation child support was affirmed (para 34).
- The denial of the mother's Rule 1-060(B)(4) motion was affirmed (para 34).
Reasons
Per Vanzi J. (Fry CJ. and Wechsler J. concurring):
Post-Emancipation Child Support: The court held that the EMA does not permit a fully emancipated minor to receive child support. The statutory language of the EMA and UPA, when read in harmony, indicates that emancipation terminates a parent's support obligations unless specific exceptions apply, such as emancipation by age while still attending high school. The district court's interpretation of the EMA to allow partial emancipation was inconsistent with legislative intent and case law (paras 9-26).
Pre-Emancipation Child Support: The court found that the UPA was appropriately applied to award retroactive child support for the period before emancipation. Although the mother's parentage was not disputed, it had not been judicially adjudicated, making the UPA a valid mechanism. The evidence supported the finding that the mother ceased supporting the minor two years before emancipation, justifying the award (paras 27-33).
Rule 1-060(B)(4) Motion: The court determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the EMA, and the emancipation order was not void. The mother's argument pertained to the application of the law, not jurisdiction (paras 17-18).