Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews child-support calculations and retroactivity in Kozacharova v. Stefanoff
Summary
Panel heard arguments over whether the trial court properly calculated the father's gross income (including employer retirement contributions and bonuses), whether the court correctly limited retroactive support, and whether it improperly attributed additional earning capacity to the mother despite childcare obligations.
The Appeals Court heard argument in a child-support modification appeal brought by Manya Kozacharova challenging several aspects of a 2023 support order entered against Peter Stefanoff.
Kozacharova argued the trial judge erred by excluding employer retirement contributions (401(k) matches and similar nontaxable employer payments) and by failing to account for historically recurring bonuses when calculating the father’s gross income for guideline purposes. She also challenged the trial court’s decision to exclude nine months from the retroactive support award and to attribute additional income to the mother despite the childcare responsibilities for twin boys and constrained after-school and vacation-program availability.
Stefanoff’s attorney, Emma Hobbs, defended the trial court’s discretion. She argued the judge reasonably attributed income and declined to make the support fully retroactive because the judge found variable bonuses and hours and concluded the record did not show a material change warranting full retroactivity. Hobbs also emphasized that the trial judge found no substantial and material change from the 2021 judgment that would support altering the attribution standard.
The panel questioned whether Kavanaugh (SJC precedent) requires inclusion of employer retirement contributions as income and pressed both sides on how to treat partial-year bonus payments in averaging income for guideline calculations. The court also explored practical childcare constraints in the mother’s employment and whether the mother’s voluntary reduction in hours was adequately supported by the record.
Why it matters: the case raises guidance-applying questions about whether employer retirement contributions and intermittent bonuses must be included in guideline calculations, how to set retroactive dates when income fluctuates, and how to weigh childcare constraints when attributing income to a custodial parent. The matter was submitted after argument.
