KENNETH WOLLINS v. LISA WOLLINS (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a trial, a judge of the Probate and Family Court entered a modification judgment that reduced the father's child support obligation retroactively, calculated his child support arrearage, and reiterated that he must contribute to college expenses. The father appeals principally claiming that the judge erred by failing to “review or admit material evidence,” and the proceedings were unfair due to “judicial bias and procedural irregularities.” We affirm.

Background. In 2015, the parties entered into a partial separation agreement requiring that the father pay the mother $549.73 per week in child support for their three children. In 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation for judgment, which clarified their obligations to contribute towards the children's college costs. In February 2020, the father filed a complaint for modification because his salary had been reduced.¹ The mother subsequently filed a complaint for contempt, seeking reimbursement for the father's portion of their middle child's college costs.

After the father's salary was reduced in February 2020, he “unilaterally reduced the amount of child support that he was paying to [the] Mother.”² In August 2022, the mother “applied for wage garnishment through the Department of Revenue,” and it began collecting $2,383.82 per month, pursuant to the parties’ original separation agreement. In August 2023, a temporary order entered that modified the father's obligation to $296 per week.

After a consolidated one-day trial, at which the self-represented parties were the only witnesses, the judge concluded that the father's child support obligation should be retroactively modified because two of the children had become emancipated and the father “experience[d] a period of having a reduced income.”³ The judge found that from June 2022, the father's child support obligation should have been $296 per week. The judge, based on the adjusted child support obligation, calculated that the father owed $21,034.42 in arrearage.⁴ The judge also found that the father was not guilty of contempt for failure to pay college costs, but did find that he owes the mother $3,450 for his portion of their middle child's college expenses. This appeal followed.

Discussion. “Our review of a child support modification judgment is limited to whether the judge's factual findings were clearly erroneous, whether there were other errors of law, and whether the judge appears to have based [the] decision on the exercise of sound discretion.” Lizardo v. Ortego, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 687, 691-692 (2017). The father argues that the judge erred by “disregarding material evidence,” and relied on “mischaracterized facts.” The father further contends that there were “procedural errors” and “judicial bias,” and that the mother's “fraud and abuse warrants reversal.”

Many of the father's arguments take issue with the judge's decisions on admitting evidence. However, trial judges have “extensive discretion” in admitting evidence and we accord their decisions “great deference.” Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Assocs., 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 485 (2000). The father tried to introduce two affidavits of the mother and a timeline he created of the mother's “fraud” (including the actions he had taken to report her to multiple government agencies), but the judge refused to accept these as exhibits because both parties were present to testify.⁵ The judge admitted three exhibits: the mother's bank statements,⁶ an e-mail message exchange between the parties, and a chart created by the mother of how much child support she received each month. The father has not shown that the judge's rulings were an abuse of discretion or that any prejudice resulted from these decisions.⁷ See Beaupre, supra at 485-487.

The father specifically argues that the judge erred by failing to consider evidence “reference[d] or incorporate[d] [in his] pretrial memorandum.” The judge explained to the parties that for evidence to be admitted they needed to “[m]ake a proper introduction,” which the father did not do for each proposed exhibit. The father also contends that he was “denied a full and fair adjudication of the issues raised in his complaint for modification.” However, when the judge asked the father if he had anything else to offer, he said that was “it for [him].” “A judge may not rely on facts that are not properly admitted in evidence,” therefore, there was no abuse of discretion. See Care & Protection of Zita, 455 Mass. 272, 280 (2009).

The father argues that the judge erred by not attributing a $60,000 per year salary to the mother, because she is allegedly concealing her income and her father assists her financially. The judge found that “[t]here was no evidence presented at trial which would support an attribution of income to [the] Mother consistent with that amount,”⁸ and that “there was insufficient evidence that [the grandfather's assistance was] a regular source of income.” The judge, having heard the parties’ testimony and reviewed the documentation they provided, was in the best position to determine the parties’ credibility and to weigh the evidence. See Patriot Power, LLC v. New Rounder, LLC, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 175, 181 (2017) (determinations of credibility and evidentiary weight are matters for fact finder, “not an appellate court”). See also Casey v. Casey, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 623, 634 (2011) (“The [child support] guidelines and our case law leave the definition of income flexible, and the judge's discretion in its determination broad”). Therefore, we do not disturb the judge's findings or determinations of credibility. See Patriot Power, LLC, supra.

The father contends that there were “procedural irregularities and judicial bias that materially prejudiced” him. “[J]udges are afforded substantial latitude in pretrial and trial management,” Esteraz, petitioner, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 330, 335 (2016), and “[w]e do not consider that discretion abused unless its exercise has been characterized by arbitrary determination, capricious disposition, whimsical thinking, or idiosyncratic choice.” Greenleaf v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 426, 429 (1986). The father's arguments again focus on the judge's assessment and discretion in admitting evidence, which we will not disturb. See Beaupre, 50 Mass. App. Ct. at 485. Moreover, the judgment had a favorable outcome for the father as he was granted retroactive modification and was found not guilty of contempt.

The father further argues that the judge disregarded his “substantial overpayments and resulting financial harm.” However, the judge found that the father “overpaid” his child support obligations and reduced his total arrearage. The judge calculated how much the father should have been paying based on his salary using the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines (guidelines). There is a “rebuttable presumption that the amount of the order which would result from the application of the guidelines is the appropriate amount of child support to be ordered.” Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507, 510 (2013), quoting G. L. c. 119A, § 13(c). Because the father has failed to rebut the presumption that the judge's calculations based on the guidelines were appropriate, we hold there was no abuse of discretion.⁹ See Morales, supra.

Judgment on father's modification complaint and judgment on mother's complaint for contempt, both dated September 11, 2023, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The father's annual compensation was reduced from $144,000 to $72,000. He was terminated from his position in May 2020, and received $1,500 per month in unemployment benefits until December 2020. In December 2020, he obtained a contract job for one month, earning $8,333. The father began the position he had at trial in January 2021, earning $2,307 per week, or approximately $120,000 annually.

2.   From February 2020 through May 2020, the father paid the mother $594 per month; from June 2020 through March 2021, the father did not pay any child support; and from April 2021 through July 2022, the father paid approximately $500 per month.

3.   The judge found, based on the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, that the father's child support obligation should have been: $363 per week from February 2020 through May 2020; $99 per week from June 2020 through November 2020; $446 per week in December 2020; $400 per week in January 2021 until October 2021, when new guidelines took effect; and $516 per week until May 2022, when one child was emancipated.

4.   The father owed $34,351.18, but $13,316.76 was deducted because, “[s]ince the implementation of the wage assignment in August of 2022, [the father was] ‘overpaying’ his child support obligation.”

5.   The judge similarly denied the mother's attempt to introduce an affidavit.

6.   The judge did not admit the bank statements that predated the complaint for modification.

7.   Moreover, the father did not object to the judge's decision to not admit the affidavits and the timeline, therefore this issue is waived. See Hoffman v. Houghton Chem. Corp., 434 Mass. 624, 639 (2001) (“The consequence of the failure [to] properly object at trial is to waive the issue on appeal”). We acknowledge that the father represented himself, but “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the same rules of procedure as litigants with counsel” (citation omitted). Mains v. Commonwealth, 433 Mass. 30, 36 (2000).

8.   The judge also found that there was no evidence that the mother could not work full time and therefore “attributed a full-time, minimum wage income” to her, at $600 per week (or approximately $31,200 per year) for the purpose of calculating child support.

9.   The father also argues that “newly discovered evidence was ignored,” including a subsequent contempt judgment. This evidence was not before the judge, therefore, we decline to address these arguments. See R.D. v. Commonwealth, 497 Mass. 608, 612 n.5 (2026).