We granted discretionary review in this dispute over child support for a child who attained the age of majority before completing his secondary education to consider whether the superior court erred in determining that the child was not a full-time student, and consequently, in terminating the father’s child support obligation pursuant to the parties’ agreement which was made an order of the court. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the superior court’s judgment was in error and we reverse. The parties, Jean Ann Bullard “Bullard” and James Swafford “Swafford”, are divorced. On July 2, 2002, the Superior Court of Polk County entered a “final consent order” regarding, inter alia, child support, which memorialized an agreement reached by the parties following mediation. The agreement provided, inter alia, that Swafford would pay child support of $160 a week for the couple’s son, payable until such time as the child becomes eighteen 18 years of age, dies, marries, or otherwise becomes emancipated, except that if the child becomes 18 years of age while enrolled in and attending secondary school on a full time basis, then such support shall continue until the child completes secondary school, provided that such support shall not be required after the child attains twenty 20 years of age. The son turned 18 years old on February 25, 2004, approximately three months before he was scheduled to graduate from high school on May 20, 2004. Due largely to voluntary class absences and tardiness, the boy did not have enough credits to graduate.1 Though he planned to attend summer school to make up some of his missing credits, he did not do so after the Polk School District canceled the summer school program. He then enrolled in the 2004 fall semester at his high school for a full course load in order to obtain the units required for graduation.
Swafford ceased child support payments on May 21, 2004, the day after the son was originally scheduled to graduate. He then filed a “Motion for Declaratory Judgment or for Modification of Child Support” seeking a declaration that the son was emancipated or that there was a material change in circumstances since the agreement because of his son’s alleged refusal to attend school and Bullard’s alleged refusal to make him go; he asked that his child support obligation “be immediately halted.” Bullard filed a counterclaim asking that Swafford be held in contempt for his failure to pay child support since May 21, 2004.
