In Contrast to Statutory Provisions, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules to Deny an Order to Modify Child Support Based on the Basis of Parent’s Divorce Agreement. - BY: Kristyn T.

Family Law Case Summary: Oklahoma Jurisdiction

SCUNGIO v. SCUNGIO, 2012 OK 90 - Okla: Supreme Court (2012)

In Contrast to Statutory Provisions, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules to Deny an Order to Modify Child Support Based on the Basis of Parent’s Divorce Agreement

In 2001, Mark Anthony Scungio (Father) and Margaret Sue Scungio (Mother) adopted their three foster children, siblings, two of whom were special needs children with serious psychological disabilities. In 2004, the parties separated in contemplation of divorce due to the Father’s admitted “emotional abuse to his wife and children” resulting in irreconcilable differences. In preparation for the divorce, the parties entered into a written agreement entitled “Contractual Agreement – Separation and Parenting Plan to be incorporated into divorce decree.” Under the agreement, the Mother became the custodial parent and the Father assumed support obligations. In consideration of the disabled children, the Agreement acknowledged that said children may require substantial care into adulthood; the Mother agreed to provide continued care and the Father agreed to provide continued child support. In 2009, the divorce was finalized and the Father retired from his position with the United States Air Force.

Subsequently, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services filed a "Notice to Review and Modify Support Order" in its administrative court on behalf of the Father asserting that the child support was not in accord with state guidelines and that the Father’s change in income required a reduction in the amount. The matter was transferred to district court. The mother moved to dismiss the motion to modify based on provisions of the parties' written Agreement which had been incorporated into their divorce decree. The Mother argued that the Agreement clearly expressed an intent that child support not be subject to the statutory requirement of modification in the event of a change in Father’s income.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the parties' Agreement failed to demonstrate intent not to be subject to the statutory requirements. Both the Mother and the Father requested appeal and the Supreme Court granted certiorari review to resolve the procedural issue of whether the motion to modify child support was properly before the district court, and the substantive issue of whether the Agreement clearly demonstrates intent to be free of Oklahoma statutory provisions concerning support modifications. 

The Court concluded that the procedure utilized to place the motion before the district court was authorized by statute. In reviewing the substantive issue, the Court applied contract law to the Agreement. Specifically, the Court pointed to two contradictory provisions in the parties’ Agreement; one of which stated clearly that the Agreement’s support provisions “…shall not be modified or changed except by written mutual consent of the parties...” and the conflicting provision which  provided that the Agreement should be “…governed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oklahoma.” On the primary basis that any decision regarding child support must always be guided by the best interests of the child, the Court argued that ambiguity in a contract must be clarified by viewing the facts and circumstances of the respective case and not simply via the language itself. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the parties clearly demonstrated their intent that there be no modification of child support without their mutual assent and it was an error for the district court to hold to the contrary. The trial court was directed to deny the petition to modify child support.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4014974430190752090&q=%22child+custody%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,223,224,226&as_ylo=2012