Arizona Court of Appeals Child Support Ruling --
State ex rel. Dep't of Economic Security (DeMetz) v. DeMetz, Ariz.
Ct. App., No. 1 CA-CV 05-0148, 3/28/06).
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the annulment of a child's
marriage during her minority revived her unemancipated status and
rekindled her divorced father's child support duty.
For Arizona Child Support Advice contact NRG.
Noting that, unlike in some other states, the effect of an annulment
on a child's emancipation status is not addressed by Arizona law,
Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer pointed out that while a dissolution
decree terminates a valid marriage as of the date of judgment, an
annulment invalidates a marriage from its inception, thereby
establishing that the marital status never existed.
The seminal question here, she said, was whether a decree that
nullifies a child's marriage similarly nullifies his or her
emancipated status. Deciding that it does, Timmer reasoned that
while marriage is traditionally viewed as an emancipation event
because the new relationship is inconsistent with the continuation
of parental controls and obligations, "that inconsistency vanishes"
when the relationship is deemed void during the child's minority.
She also found it significant that reviving the parents' duty of
support relieves the public coffers of that burden.
Timmer was not swayed by the obligor's argument although a child's
unemancipated status may be revived upon annulment of a void
marriage, it is not revived upon annulment of a voidable one (his
16-year-old daughter's marriage was annulled on grounds of
fraudulent inducement). Saying that the distinction between void and
voidable marriages was meaningless in this case, she pointed out
that the annulment statute applies to both types of marriage--once
an annulment decree is issued, the marriage is deemed invalid from
its inception regardless of whether it was void or merely voidable.
Timmer also said that although the daughter's marriage was
originally valid and therefore emancipated her, "it does not
necessarily follow that this status was irrevocable." Asserting that
"public policy directs that parents financially support their
children, even if those children make unwise decisions," she noted
that when addressing this issue, other jurisdictions had reached
similar conclusions. Timmer thus held that the obligor's support
duty recommenced upon entry of the daughter's annulment decree.
