Court: Child support must be paid if graduation delayed

PHOENIX - Parents ordered to provide child support can't escape their obligation simply because the youngster can't graduate from high school in four years, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the arguments by a father who said his financial responsibility ended when his youngest child should have graduated.

The father, not identified, acknowledged the requirement in state law for support through high school. But he argued that the law was not intended to provide an extra year of support for a child on the "five-year plan'' who did not graduate in four due to "failing grades and lousy attendance.''

But the judges said as long as the student appears to be making progress, the duty continues even into a fifth year of high school — and even if the student already has turned 18.

Court records show that genetic testing showed the man is the biological father of all four of the mother's children. He was ordered to pay both back support and future payments.

In 2005 the state Department of Economic Security, which is entitled to intervene in child support cases, sued for past-due support. The father disputed the amount and said he was entitled to credit for payments he made after the youngest should have graduated from high school.

State law generally ends required child support at 18. But it also says if the youngster is still attending school at that age, the obligation can continue until the youngster turns 19.

The father contends that requirement simply means the money continues if the child is a senior on his or her 18th birthday but is set to graduate that year. He said it doesn't mean taking an entire extra year to get a diploma.

Appellate Judge Philip Hall, writing for the court, said the father does have a point. He said the law does "impose some responsibility on the child to be present in class.''

But Hall pointed out the law does not impose any specific attendance requirement.

Instead, Hall said, the trial judge has to consider specific factors, including whether the youngster is regularly present in class, the reasons for the absences and whether the child is taking "affirmative steps in pursuit of an education.''

Beyond that, the judge said, state policy requires parents to support their offspring "even if those children make unwise decisions.''

In this case, Hall said, the mother acknowledged the child was "struggling'' but said he was "giving his best effort'' while moving back and forth between his parents' homes. She also said many of the days the child was listed as absent were simply days he showed up late to school.

The child did, in fact, eventually get his high school diploma.