The parties to this case include the divorced parents of a minor child who is in the custody of Mother and who does not receive public assistance. Father is obligated under the terms of the divorce decree to pay Mother $100 per week in child support. At Father’s request, the Department of Human Resources DHR determined that, under the guidelines found in OCGA § 19-6-15, the amount of his payments should be reduced. Pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-12, DHR filed a petition seeking a decrease in the weekly amount of support, and Mother objected to the proposed modification. Citing Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521 423 SE2d 383 1992, the trial court denied the petition, holding that DHR did not have standing to seek modification because the child was not receiving public assistance and DHR did not show a need for additional support. DHR appeals pursuant to our grant of an application for discretionary appeal. Although OCGA § 19-11-12 confers standing on DHR to seek a downward modification in those cases wherein it previously participated and obtained an order establishing or enforcing child support, we affirm because the record fails to show that DHR met the burden of proving its standing by demonstrating such prior involvement in this case.
Allen is not direct authority for the trial court’s ruling that DHR lacks standing. That case involved an attempt by DHR, in response to an application for child support enforcement services pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-6 c and 19-11-8 b, to increase the amount of support for a child who was not receiving public assistance. In those circumstances, we held that DHR is authorized “to file modification actions on behalf of children who do not receive public assistance only in cases where it can show the child’s need for additional support.” Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, supra at 523 2. However, the present action does not seek such an upward modification on behalf of a child, but is brought by DHR on behalf of the non-custodial parent to decrease the amount of support. Proof of the child’s need for additional support clearly is not relevant to DHR’s authority to seek a downward modification.
