A Puerto Rico appeals court has ordered a hearing regarding child support payments in a case involving Daniel Torres Urrutia and Nahomi Hernández Soto. The court's decision comes after Hernández Soto requested to overturn a lower court's ruling that denied her motion for contempt against Torres Urrutia for failing to pay child support. This ruling is significant as it addresses the complexities of child support obligations and credits that may arise between parents.
The case, docketed as TA2026CE00865, began in the Superior Court of Carolina, Puerto Rico, where the initial dispute centered around the child support payments for their son, born on January 2, 2016. After their marriage was dissolved in September 2016, the court awarded Hernández Soto custody of their child and initially set Torres Urrutia's child support obligation at $177.49 biweekly. Over the years, this amount was adjusted several times, with the most recent modification occurring in May 2024, which set the monthly obligation at $233.88.
As the case progressed, Torres Urrutia claimed he had overpaid child support and sought a review of his obligations. In December 2024, the court acknowledged a pending issue regarding potential credits for overpayments. The court allowed both parties time to gather evidence related to this claim, indicating the complexity of calculating child support obligations when credits are involved.
In May 2026, Hernández Soto filed a motion for contempt, arguing that Torres Urrutia had stopped making child support payments since May 2025, citing alleged credits as the reason for his non-payment. The lower court issued a show cause order, requiring Torres Urrutia to explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing to pay a total of $2,806.56 in overdue child support. However, the court ultimately denied Hernández Soto's motion, leading her to appeal the decision.
The appeals court, consisting of Judges Rivera Marchand, Boria Vizcarrondo, and Bonilla Ortiz, reviewed the case and determined that the lower court had erred in not holding a hearing regarding the child support credits claimed by Torres Urrutia. The court stated, "We order the holding of an evidentiary hearing to receive evidence on the current balance of the credit with ASUME in favor of Mr. Torres Urrutia and the specific date on which this credit will be exhausted." This decision indicates that the court recognizes the importance of clarifying the financial obligations of both parents to ensure the welfare of the child.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties, particularly for Hernández Soto, who is seeking to ensure that her child receives the necessary financial support. The court's decision to order a hearing could lead to a clearer understanding of Torres Urrutia's financial responsibilities and the timeline for any future payments. Additionally, this case highlights the challenges that can arise in family law, particularly regarding child support and the complexities of determining when a parent is in default of their obligations.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for the evidentiary hearing as ordered by the appeals court. This hearing will allow both parties to present evidence regarding the child support credits and any other relevant financial information. The outcome of this hearing will be crucial in determining the future of child support payments in this case.
While the appeals court's ruling can be appealed to a higher court, it is unclear if either party intends to pursue further legal action beyond the evidentiary hearing. The court's decision to order a hearing indicates a willingness to address the complexities of child support and ensure that the child's best interests are prioritized.