Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Danforth v. Smith Over Child Support Modification

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Jan. 29 heard oral argument in Danforth v. Smith (Docket No. 24P439), a dispute over whether a trial judge erred by refusing to modify a prior child-support finding.

Attorney Michael Traft, representing Jonathan Danforth, told the three-justice panel that the trial judge failed to base her modification analysis on the facts the court is required to consider. “This case is basically about a modification of child support and how the trial judge is supposed to apply it,” Traft said, arguing the judge improperly relied on skepticism of the father’s statements rather than the income finding the trial court had previously made.

The panel — Justice Eric Nyman (presiding), Justice Joseph Ditkoff and Justice Chauncey Wood — pressed both sides on evidentiary specifics. Justice Ditkoff noted a May 2019 finding that the father’s income was $38,100 a week and confirmed that finding was not appealed. “And he did not appeal that finding. Correct?” Ditkoff asked. The court also questioned where in the record payment and Department of Revenue documentation could be found after counsel referred to weekly payments of $659 prior to a later reduction.

The respondent, identified in the transcript as Miss Smith, disputed Danforth’s claim to an overpayment and said she had produced records at trial showing the payments she received from Danforth, Department of Revenue remittances and Social Security deposits. “What I did is at trial, I gave the payments that were made through the DOR. I showed the checks that Mister Danforth had given me directly, and I also showed the Social Security payments that were made into the account,” Miss Smith told the court.

Traft argued the father had a changed financial situation after retiring and beginning to collect Social Security in 2022, and that the judge should compare the parties’ current circumstances to those that supported the 2019 order. He told the court that assets and real-estate transfers affecting the parties had changed since the earlier proceedings and that the judge had not adequately accounted for those changes. “He was taking Social Security,” Traft said, adding that the father had testified about asset transfers and retirement.

The panel also raised questions about credits and calculations. Miss Smith told the court her trial evidence showed that Social Security deposits plus payments from Danforth produced an overall shortfall of roughly $400, not an overpayment. The parties and the court discussed a disputed $17,000 deposit and whether it was credited as child support, and whether the record contained the parties’ agreement that the trial court referenced for emancipation.

A separate factual dispute concerned whether the father had made the asserted weekly payments before a temporary reduction in 2023; counsel was unable at argument to point to the specific appendix pages the court requested. The justices repeatedly asked both sides to identify particular exhibits or transcript pages that supported their account of payment history.

After approximately 15 minutes of argument for each side, Justice Nyman told the parties the court would take the case under advisement. “This case will be taken under advisement. The case is submitted,” he said.

The appeals court record will determine whether the trial judge’s findings — including the unappealed May 2019 income determination and the judge’s assessment that the father lacked credibility — were clearly erroneous in light of subsequent evidence about Social Security, asset transfers and payment history.