Houser v. Houser: Why Parents Cannot Waive Child Support – Even with "Fifty-Fifty" Custody

The Case That Shattered Maryland's Biggest Child Support Myth

When the attorney walked into the Maryland courtroom and announced that the parties "did not want to use the child support guidelines," Judge J. Michael Wachs likely thought he'd misheard. But this wasn't a mistake—it was the opening salvo in what would become one of Maryland's most significant child support cases, challenging the very foundation of how the state protects children's financial interests.

The Income Disparity That Made Zero Support Laughable

The facts made the parents' position even more astounding. Erica Hall Houser, a software engineer, earned $74,000 per year. Her ex-husband Nicholas, an IT Architect, earned $170,000 per year—more than double her income. Under Maryland's guidelines, this disparity meant Nicholas should pay $2,105 per month (not per year) in child support. Yet both parents insisted on zero.

The couple's elaborate scheme involved three separate agreements executed just five days before their hearing. The Property Settlement Agreement handled assets normally—Erica kept the Edgewater home while Nicholas waived his equity. The Custody Agreement granted joint legal custody with Erica maintaining primary physical custody 61% of the time. But the third document—the Child Support Agreement—attempted the impossible: a complete waiver of all support obligations, including $41,708 in existing arrears.

The Constitutional Argument the Court Called "Laughable"

The parents didn't just ask for deviation from the guidelines—they claimed a constitutional right to ignore them entirely. Their attorneys argued that the fundamental right to determine how to raise one's child included the right to waive child support. The Court rejected this "laughable argument," recognizing it for what it was: an attempt to reframe financial obligations as parenting choices.

Judge Wachs was having none of it. When presented with the zero-support agreement, his incredulous "Why?" received a response that would echo through Maryland's appellate courts: the parents believed they knew better than the state what their child needed financially. The judge's response was swift and unequivocal—he ordered the full guideline amount of $2,105 monthly, plus payments toward the arrears.

When Both Parents Want the Same Thing, Someone Must Protect the Child

In an unusual twist, both parents appealed the judge's decision—technical adversaries seeking the same outcome. This peculiar alignment prompted the appellate court to take an extraordinary step: appointing an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General to argue in favor of the guidelines. After all, someone needed to represent the child's interests when both parents were aligned against them.

The Court of Special Appeals didn't mince words. "The guidelines are mandatory," Judge Kevin F. Arthur wrote in the August 2024 opinion. The court cited the 1991 case establishing that child support "may not be bargained away or waived." This wasn't just about the Houser family—it was about protecting all Maryland children from agreements that prioritize parental preferences over children's needs.

The Hidden Danger of Power Dynamics

The appellate court's opinion revealed a deeper concern that made this case about more than just wealthy parents trying to control their finances. The Court expressed serious concern about power dynamics where one spouse could bully the other into "agreeing" to waive child support. As the judges noted, if the Court accepts child support can be waived in a case where there is no apparent bullying, "it opens the door to bullies everywhere."

This insight cuts to the heart of why Maryland law prohibits such agreements. Today's amicable divorce could be tomorrow's coercive situation. The parent with greater earning power—in this case, Nicholas with his $170,000 salary—holds inherent leverage. Even without overt threats, economic disparity creates pressure. The law protects children by removing this negotiation from the table entirely.

The Court emphasized that "The Judge must do more than rubber stamp what the Parties agree" because the court has inherent authority over children. This authority exists precisely because children cannot advocate for themselves and their interests may not align with their parents' desires.

Shattering the "Fifty-Fifty" Custody Myth

Perhaps most importantly, the Houser case demolishes one of family law's most persistent myths. Notably, the Court was applying the shared custody guidelines in this case. Despite Nicholas having the children for five overnights every two weeks—a substantial parenting schedule—child support remained mandatory.

There is a "gigantic myth that child support does not apply when parties have 'fifty-fifty' custody or joint custody variation." The Houser case proves definitively that even with significant shared custody time, the higher-earning parent still owes support. The guidelines account for custody arrangements, but they don't eliminate obligations when incomes differ substantially.

This myth particularly harms children whose parents mistakenly believe equal time means equal financial responsibility. When one parent earns $170,000 and the other earns $74,000, "equal" custody doesn't create equal financial capacity. The guidelines ensure children maintain similar standards of living in both homes, not that they experience feast at one house and famine at the other.

What This Means for Maryland Families

The Maryland Supreme Court's decision to review this case, with oral arguments set for March 3, 2025, signals its significance. The high court will address whether fit parents can privately agree to waive support and whether such agreements deserve constitutional protection. But the Court of Special Appeals has already sent a clear message: children's rights trump parental agreements.

For divorcing parents, the lesson is clear:

• You cannot negotiate away your children's right to support
• Income disparities matter, regardless of custody arrangements
• Shared custody reduces but doesn't eliminate support obligations
• Courts will intervene to protect children, even from their parents' agreements

For attorneys, the case reinforces that creative legal strategies have limits when children's welfare is at stake. No amount of sophisticated drafting can override Maryland's public policy protecting children's financial security.

The Bottom Line

The Houser case stands as a monument to Maryland's commitment to child welfare over parental autonomy. When an IT Architect earning $170,000 and a software engineer earning $74,000 tried to agree on zero support for their child, the courts said no—emphatically and repeatedly.

As we await the Supreme Court's decision, one thing remains certain: in Maryland, child support isn't optional, negotiable, or waivable. It's a fundamental right that belongs to the child, not a bargaining chip for parents. Whether you have primary custody, shared custody, or any variation in between, if there's an income disparity, there's likely a support obligation.

The myth that "fifty-fifty means no support" has been shattered. The principle that parents know best has met its limit. In the end, Maryland law recognizes a simple truth: children need and deserve financial support from both parents, period.