- 10 -
the parties' submissions to determine whether, and to what
extent, a modification was warranted.
Farmilette v. Farmilette, supra, and the instant case
present similar circumstances——albeit the former rests on a real,
and not imaginary, event. In each case, a divorced husband (or
soon–to–be ex–husband) is ordered to pay family support. And in
each case, a terminating event occurred (child's emancipation or
ex-wife's hypothetical death). In Farmilette, the court squarely
faced the issue of whether (and, if so, by how much) to vary
Mr. Farmilette's family support payment beyond the terminating
event. Significant for our purposes was the court's willingness
to take on that task; i.e., to review the evidence and recalcu-
late, if necessary, the amount of family support owing following
the changed situation. The State court's willingness to do so
leads to our affirmative response to the question posed here: Is
there good reason to believe that Dr. Gonzales' family support
obligation would continue after petitioner's death? We think so.
Had petitioner died before the superior court entered the divorce
decree, Dr. Gonzales, as the noncustodial parent of three
children, could have remained liable to pay family support,
whether in full or in diminished amounts.
This Court is also mindful of the temporary nature of the
order involved here——pendente lite. As its name suggests, it is
effective only during the pendency of a divorce proceeding. When
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011