A new Maryland case has made it clear that a trial court will not adopt parents’ agreement to waive any child support obligation without substantial justification to do so. In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser, 490 Md. 592 (2025), the Supreme Court of Maryland held that the court does not have to uphold parents’ mutual agreement to waive any child support obligation in custody or divorce proceedings, even if the parents agree that said waiver is in the best interests of the child.
The Background of the Houser Case
The Court ruled that parents may not bargain away their duty to support their child, as the child has a legal right to receive said support. In this case, Mother and Father each filed their claims for divorce and custody of the parties’ one child. Prior to appearing for a contested merits trial, the parties reached three separate agreements: one that resolved all property issues arising out of the marriage, one that resolved all custody issues, and one that resolved child support.
In that child support agreement, Mother, who had primary physical custody pursuant to the parents’ custody agreement, agreed to waive any ongoing child support obligation of Father as well as any arrearage of child support, finding that doing so would be in the best interests of the minor child.
Notwithstanding the fact that the parents agreed to waive any child support obligation on the part of Father, at the merits hearing, the trial court, upon calculating that Father would owe Mother child support pursuant to the Maryland Child Support Guidelines in excess of $2,000 per month, refused to agree to the parents’ child support waiver.
The Outcome
The parents’ combined monthly income positioned the case above the Maryland Child Support Guidelines; however, the trial judge was dissatisfied with either parent’s justification for waiving child support altogether. As such, the trial court ordered Father to pay child support. Mother and Father both appealed the decision, in part, on the aligned position that the trial court should not have imposed a child support obligation on the part of Father when both parents agreed to waive child support.
The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that while a parent has a fundamental right to determine the care and custody of their child, that does not afford a parent the right to forego a child’s legal entitlement to child support. The Supreme Court reasoned that lawfully ordered child support does not violate a parent’s fundamental right in the care and custody of their child, even where the parents object to said child support.
The Impacts
The impact of In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser means that any parents who agree to waive a child support obligation must present a sufficient, justifiable reason for doing so to the court. Simply because the parents agreed to waive any child support obligation does not mean that the court will not address child support at all or find that any agreement to waive support is in the best interests of the child.
Because the right to receive child support rests with the child, not with the parent intended to receive the support payments, the parent may not waive the child’s right to receive support payments, even if the parent believes it is in the child’s best interest. Therefore, litigants need to understand that even when they contractually agree by way of a Marital Settlement Agreement to waive child support, that provision will be scrutinized and possibly invalidated by the trial judge should the trial judge not feel there is a sufficient basis to waive the support obligation.
Closing Thoughts
This landmark case has changed the child support process in Maryland. Attorneys will need to be prepared to address this issue in trial in cases where the agreed-upon child support payment is less than what the law might otherwise provide. If you have any questions about what the impacts of this case mean for you, please reach out to our firm at 301-298-8401 to speak with one of our family law attorneys.
