## Facts

- Julie A. Young and Gregory J. Leifester, who were not married, had a child, Travis, born in 1982.
- For many years after Travis’s birth, Young did not request child support from Leifester and did not bring a court action to obtain support.
- In 1996, at the request of the State Attorney’s Office of Maryland, Maine’s Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a verified Uniform Support Petition in Maine under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) on Young’s behalf against Leifester.
- The original petition sought a determination of paternity and an award of child support, but it did not specifically request arrears or retroactive child support.
- In March 1997, DHS filed an amendment (forwarded from Maryland) that changed the petition only by adding a request for arrears/retroactive child support; the amendment itself was not separately verified.
- Leifester stipulated to paternity and agreed to an ongoing weekly child-support amount.
- The Superior Court (Androscoggin County) entered an order for ongoing support and awarded Young $21,346 as reimbursement for past child support.
- Leifester appealed the retroactive-support award and related rulings to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court).

## Issues

1. Whether the Superior Court erred by allowing DHS/Young to amend a verified UIFSA petition to request arrears/retroactive child support when the amendment was not separately verified.
2. Whether UIFSA permits a Maine court, acting as a responding tribunal, to award retroactive child support (arrears) when no prior support order existed.
3. Whether the Superior Court miscalculated the amount of retroactive child support owed.

## Decision

- The Law Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that accepting the unverified amendment was not error because the original UIFSA petition was verified and the amendment did not add new factual allegations; it only expanded the relief requested.
- The court held that UIFSA supplies a procedural method for interstate support enforcement and does not limit Maine courts from applying Maine’s substantive paternity and child-support statutes, which authorize an award of retroactive support once paternity is established.
- The court rejected Leifester’s challenge to the amount of the retroactive-support award, concluding the record supported the $21,346 figure and the trial court committed no reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- UIFSA provides a procedural framework for interstate support cases; the substantive right to support and the scope of relief come from the responding state’s support and paternity statutes.
- UIFSA’s verification requirement is satisfied by a properly verified initial petition; a later amendment need not be separately verified when it does not change the factual basis for the claim and only adds or clarifies requested relief.
- A responding tribunal may determine and award arrears/retroactive child support consistent with the responding state’s substantive law after paternity is established.
- Retroactive child-support determinations are reviewed with deference to the trial court’s factfinding and support calculations and will be upheld when supported by the record and consistent with governing law.

## Conclusion

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a UIFSA support order requiring Gregory Leifester to pay ongoing child support and $21,346 in retroactive support, holding that the Superior Court could accept an unverified amendment that only added a request for arrears and that Maine substantive law permitted, and supported, the retroactive-support award once paternity was established.


Department of Human Services v. Leifester, 721 A.2d 189 (1998)