On April 3, 2012, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in May v. May. The attorneys at Wessel, Lehker & Fumelle represented Michael May in this post-judgment child support dispute, and have blogged about the case previously. The issue presented in May was whether agreements between parents to set a floor on child support are unenforceable because they are against public policy, just has agreements to set a ceiling on child support have been held unenforceable because they are against public policy. See previous posts in this blog for further explanation of the issue.
In an opinion that has further muddied these already murky waters, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to enforce the child support agreement. The Court held that the Mays’ agreement did not violate public policy because “the circuit court retains its equitable power to consider circumstances in existence when the stipulation was challenged that were unforeseen by the parties when they entered into the agreement if those circumstances adversely affect the best interests of the children.” The Court flatly ignored a central issue: That in a shared-placement case, the financial resources in both homes affects the children’s best interests.
As Justice Bradley noted in her concurrence, the majority opinion “creates confusion rather than clarity.” It is small consolation that Justice Abrahamson’s dissent shows a clear understanding of the issues. Abrahamson states that the parties should not have “the ability to stipulate to a truly unmodifiable child support floor. This result is necessary because freedom of contract cannot take precedence over the best interests of the child.[fn2] While it is more frequently the case that raising the amount of child support would be in the child’s best interests, situations could arise in which lowering the amount would be in the child’s best interests because of fluctuations in the parents’ income levels.”