Nicholson, however, stands out in two important cases in two important cases: (1) Nicholson understood an agreement prior to 1988 and (2) Nicholson included child benefit, not support.   Amendments to the Divorce Act 1988 clearly state that the provisions relating to support obligations contained in a real estate transaction contract cannot be amended by the court, while the provisions relating to child assistance can always be amended where a party can prove a change in circumstances.   See 23 Pa.C.S. 3105 (b), c). 2017—Matthews v. Brinckhaus, Va. Ct. of Appeals, Unpublished, No. 1915-16-4The court erred in incorporating the social arrangement of the parties into its custody and visitation order, without first verifying whether the terms of the agreement were in the best interests of the child. The mother and father have reached an agreement for shared custody of the child, and the mother provides primary physical care and the visiting father. After the parties reached the agreement, but before the agreement came into force, Pater was convicted of second degree assault and given a suspended sentence of about five years. The father was not to be in contact with the child as a precondition for parole.

Despite the hearing of this evidence, the regional court accepted the agreement in its custody and access order. These circumstances concerned the father`s ability to raise the child and their compliance with the best interests of the child should have been considered by the court before the agreement was included in an order. In each divorce case, the agreements between the parties are stipulated in a marriage comparison contract. This spout is attached and entered into the “stop dissolution” form (FL-180). 2016— Jones v. Jones, Va. Ct. of Appeals, Unpublished, No. 0062-15-2The court made no mistake in taking part in his order, which took the husband`s military retirement plan to compensate the wife if the husband circumvented the wife`s right to her part in the plan. Although the settlement agreement between the parties did not contain such a compensation provision, the agreement clearly revealed the wife`s intention to receive half of the husband`s age plan.

The woman`s interest in the husband`s retirement plan was expressed after the agreement was included in the final divorce decree. In the event that the wife receives a reduced sum as a result of the husband`s actions, the wife would be entitled to rights. However, the court erred in authorizing the provisions of the divisional order to prohibit Husband from conducting effective elections that could affect the value of the wife`s interest in the plan, since the parties` settlement agreement did not provide for such restrictions.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that according to 23 Pa.C.S. The court had no jurisdiction to change the terms of the September 20 support decision, as the order was made voluntarily by the parties on the basis of their real estate transaction contract.