I would like to know the names of at least 2 cases (from any court in
Penn) where dovirced parents (not still married) made an agreement
regarding chirld support which was read into the record as a court
order and then years later, the agreement (or part of the agreement)
was still upheld by the court, even though one of the parents didn't
want it anymore. I already know that agreeements that reduce a
suppport amount below what kids are entitled to is not allowed. But
what if the agreement is for more suppport for the kids. The agreement
was not part of an MSA; it was made a year after the divorce.

In each case, I'll need to know the name of the case and I'll need a
link to the content of the case. I can supply an e-mail address to
anyone who needs this. If someone can provide a complete case that
shows  that such agreeements must be enforced, I'll pay $150.00

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 07 Feb 2006 05:30 PST

nobelme-ga,

Just to make sure I've got things clear:

1.  Parents get divorced

2.  About a year later, they mutually agree on increased child
support, put the agreement in writing, signed by both parents (?), and
have it made part of the court record.

3.  Later, one parent asks the court to, basically, ignore the
agreement, and the court agrees.


Is that the gist of it?

---

Clarification of Question by nobelme-ga on 07 Feb 2006 05:44 PST

yes. The original agreement was made after the divorce was finalized
so it's not part of a marital settlement. The agreement stated that
one party would have more time with the kids than the temporary order
(which was theonly order in force at the time) was allowing. The time
the other party received in the agreement was more than would likely
be given to that party if the court were to determine the amount of
visitation). The other party agreed to pay an amount of support that
would not include any reduction for having more visitation. the
agreement also said the other party would never be granted a reduction
for having this additional visitation. The agreeement was stated in an
unambiguous way and read by the judge who accepted the agreement which
included both support and custdy features.

4 years later, on the basis that there were changed guidlines and the
fact that support can always be reviewed after threee years a hearing
was held and the judge decided he was not even interested in looking
at the original agreement. thus, a reduction was made to reflect the
visitation.

Once an agreement becomes a court order it can only be changed by the court.
One party to the agreement cannot change the agreement, only the court
can change it.  By change I mean reduce any terms of the agreement.

The other party didn't change the agreement. The other party took the
matter to court and then the court said that support agreements can
always be changed. I know they can be changed- but are there cases
where the court felt there was a responsibility to still consider the
original agreement made and incorporate some featuers of the original
agreement into the new order? Especially since the first order was
read into the record by another judge in the same court! The agreement
enhanced the condition of the children and did not diminish it, so I
can't understand why the court would choose to ignore the original,
legal agreement.