Opinion
Record No. 0866-93-4
Decided: July 26, 1994
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, Gerald Bruce Lee, Judge
Affirmed.
Robert D. Weiss for appellant.
David H. Fletcher (Gannon, Cottrell Ward, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Willis and Elder
Pursuant to Code Sec. 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Although the record discloses that in the 1992 fall term, Robert took only three classes, none of which afforded college credit, that during the 1993 winter term he enrolled in twelve hours of classes, only nine of which afforded college credit, and that during his three semesters in college he had accumulated no college credit hours or quality points, the fact that he was enrolled and exerted some academic effort supports the trial court's determination that he is an enrolled college student.
Citing In re Marriage of Falat, 201 Ill. App.3d 320, 559 N.E.2d 33 (1990), Ms. Bradshaw contends that because the parties entered into the separation agreement in Illinois and while domiciliaries of that state, the agreement should be construed substantively according to the law of Illinois, which permits modification of a support award even subsequent to the beneficiary's majority. We disagree.
A parent has the legal obligation to support his children only during their minority . . . . [T]his obligation does not preclude the parent from contracting to support the children after their minority. However, where such contracts are incorporated into support decrees by a divorce court, they can only be modified by that court to the extent of its jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of a court to provide for child support pursuant to a divorce is purely statutory. The relevant statutes only deal with the court's power to provide for support and maintenance of minor children. Once the child reaches majority, the jurisdiction of the divorce court to provide for his support and maintenance terminates unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree.
Cutshaw v. Cutshaw, 220 Va. 638, 641, 261 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1979) (citations omitted).
The trial court correctly ruled that because Robert was no longer a minor, the court's authority to order support for him was limited to the contracted amount, $200 per month.
The issue of mootness was not presented to the trial court. We do not have before us uncontested facts enabling us to make a mootness determination.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.