A woman that has allegedly been shacking up with the teenaged foster child of her parents in Provo, Utah, was denied her monthly child support in 2006, as Utah law called the relationship "marriage-like." Now, per the Salt Lake Tribune, the former wife has won an appeal and her ex must return to paying her $1,200 a month.
T.L.M. had suspected that his wife was sexually involved and living with the teenager after the two divorced in 2006. He had originally been relieved of his child support payments when a 4
th District judge cited that his ex's new relationship was like a marriage.
B.S.M., in denying a sexual relationship with the teen, named as "M.H." in court documents, had her child support reinstated by a unanimous decision from the Utah Supreme Court justices.
The justices agreed that even if B.S.M. was having sexual relations with M.H. it didn't equate that the two where setting up house and didn't come close to meeting the statutory definition of cohabitation.
R.L.M. was ordered to meet his obligations once again.
Justice Thomas Lee wrote of the decision, "The two may have had a sexual relationship and they may have slept in the same house for a time. But their relationship lacked any other marker of marriage-like cohabitation. Ms. (T.L.M.) lived as separate guests with distinct roles in the home of Ms. (T.L.M.)'s parents - Ms. (T.L.M.) as an adult child sleeping on her parents' couch and M.H. as their teenage foster son living in a bedroom with other foster children. This relationship did not rise to the level of marriage-like cohabitation."
Murray-based attorney, Jeffrey Callister, represents B.S.M. Callister said that he felt that the new ruling will help future cases that are similar in vein, by setting a clear definition of what cohabitation is.
The opinion further stated, "We cannot delineate a list of required elements of cohabitation because there is no prototype of marriage that all married couples conform to. What we can do is identify general hallmarks of marriage (and thus cohabitation). Those hallmarks include a shared residence, an intimate relationship and a common household involving shared expenses and shared decisions."
B.S.M. has not been charged with any criminal activities for her sexual relationship with M.H. and Provo Police Sgt. M.S. said there are no current investigations into her actions.
At the time of the divorce, the couple's children submitted affidavits stating that M.H. claimed to be their mother's boyfriend, the two openly flirted with one another and that their mother had visited M.H. in Provo.
It was the children's testimony that had led the judge to conclude that the two were cohabitating. Later, during appeal, attorneys were able to argue that there was no proof that the B.S.M. and M.H. engaged in actual sexual trysts.
T.M. tried to sway the court with allegations that his ex-wife and young boyfriend shared money - which may have helped his claim that they cohabitated - but the justices rejected his theory.
If you are in the midst of attaining an adjustment to your child support, for whatever your claim may be, contact a family law attorney to best represent you.