Case Title: MELODIE A. STEELE V. ROBERT B. NEEMAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0117

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
MELODIE A. STEELE V. ROBERT B. NEEMAN2009 WY 58206 P.3d 384Case Number: S-08-0117Decided: 04/28/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
MELODIE 
A. STEELE,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.ROBERT B. 
NEEMAN,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

The 
Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Christopher 
M. Wages of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

DaNece 
Day and Christopher R. Ringer of Lubnau & Bailey, PC, Gillette, Wyoming 

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this child 
support action, Melodie Steele (Mother) sought an upward modification of child 
support against Robert Neeman (Father).  
The district court modified the child support amount, but downward to 
less than half the statutorily determined presumptive amount.  The district court cited the child's 
poor relationship with his father, which included lack of visitation, as the 
reason for deviation.  We 
reverse.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Mother states her 
sole issue as "[w]hether the District Court erred when it modified Neeman's 
child support obligation and deviated from the presumptive child support 
amount."1  

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Mother and Father 
have one son (Child).  They divorced 
in 1991.  In their divorce decree, 
Father agreed to pay child support until Child turned twenty.  In 2006, because it had been more than 
three years since the prior support order had been entered, Mother, through the 
State of Wyoming, petitioned for a modification of child support.2  Based on the financial affidavits, 
Mother requested an upward adjustment in child support.  Father responded with a "Motion to 
Terminate Child Support."  Father 
gave as his reasons for his motion the fact that Child had turned eighteen and 
Child had petitioned to legally change his surname from that of Father to that 
of Mother.

 
 
[¶4]      An evidentiary 
hearing was held in which Mother and Father testified.  Financial evidence was introduced.  There was also testimony regarding the 
relationship between Father and Child.  
Father and Child spent three days together in 2005.  No evidence was adduced as to how the 
two interacted during those three days.  
Otherwise there had been no visitation between Father and Child since 
approximately 2000. No reason was provided.  Father testified he telephones Child 
approximately once a month but gets only the answering machine.  He leaves messages.  He has no knowledge of Child ever 
returning his phone calls.  Mother 
testified Child has made some unidentified attempts to contact Father.  

 
 
[¶5]      At the time of 
the hearing Mother had remarried and was living in Florida.  Child had been using Mother's married 
surname for an undetermined period of time and petitioned to legally change his 
surname when he turned eighteen.  
Mother testified Child preferred her married surname so he could feel 
part of the family.  There was no 
evidence as to Child's feelings towards Father.

 
 
[¶6]      In its decision 
letter, the district court found Father's presumptive child support amount to be 
$736.24.  The district court, 
however, deviated from this amount.  
The district court reasoned:

 
 
The 
child spends and historically has spent little or no time with the father and 
also has shown very little interest in developing a relationship with the 
father.  The child has not even been 
using his surname and has been going by mother's current last name.  Also, there is a petition filed to 
change the child's last name from Neeman.  
It is apparent to the court that the father is merely a financial source 
for the child and nothing more.  
  

 
 
While 
the district court did not think this was legally sufficient to terminate 
Father's child support obligation, it decided it did justify a downward 
deviation from the presumptive amount.  
Consequently, the district court set Father's child support obligation at 
$300 per month until Child's twentieth birthday.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Standard 
of review

 
 
[¶7]      We review a 
district court's order on a petition to modify child support to determine if the 
district court has abused its discretion.  
Gray v. Pavey, 2007 WY 84, ¶ 
8, 158 P.3d 667, 668 (Wyo. 2007).  
In reviewing for an abuse of discretion, our primary consideration is the 
reasonableness of the district court's decision in light of the evidence 
presented.

 
 
            
A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which 
exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1252 
(Wyo. 1995) (quoting Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 439, 440 (Wyo. 
1993)). Our review entails evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support the district court's decision, and we afford to the prevailing party 
every favorable inference while omitting any consideration of evidence presented 
by the unsuccessful party. Triggs [v. Triggs], 920 P.2d [653] at 657 [(Wyo. 
1996)]; Cranston v. Cranston, 879 P.2d 345, 351 (Wyo. 1994). Findings of fact not supported by the evidence, 
contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence cannot be 
sustained. Jones v. Jones, 858 P.2d 289, 291 (Wyo. 1993). Similarly, an abuse of discretion is present "when a 
material factor deserving significant weight is ignored.'" Triggs, 920 P.2d  at 657 (quoting Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 
996 (Wyo. 1993)).

 
 

Reavis 
v. Reavis, 
955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo. 1998).  See also Witowski v. Roosevelt, 2009 WY 
5, ¶ 13, 199 P.3d 1072, 1076 (Wyo. 2009); Bingham v. Bingham, 2007 WY 145, ¶ 10, 
167 P.3d 14, 17-18 (Wyo. 2007); Pahl v. 
Pahl, 2004 WY 40, ¶ 6, 87 P.3d 1250, 1252 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
Deviation 
from presumptive child support amount

 
 
[¶8]      Determination of 
the appropriate amount of child support is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-304 (LexisNexis 2007). The statute establishes a method for determining 
child support amounts based on the parents' incomes.  Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-307(a) (LexisNexis 2007), the amount determined under § 20-2-304 is 
"rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be awarded in 
any proceeding to establish or modify temporary or permanent child support 
amounts."  

 
 
[¶9]      Section 
20-2-307(b) establishes a method by which the determining court may deviate from 
the presumptive amount:

 
 
(b) 
A court may deviate from the presumptive child support established by W.S. 
20-2-304 upon a specific finding that the application of the presumptive child 
support would be unjust or inappropriate in that particular case.  In any case where the court has deviated 
from the presumptive child support, the reasons therefor shall be specifically 
set forth fully in the order or decree.  
In determining whether to deviate from the presumptive child support 
established by W.S. 20-2-304, the court shall consider the following 
factors:

 
 
            
(i) The age of the child;

            
(ii) The cost of necessary child day care;

            
(iii) Any special health care and educational needs of the 
child;

            
(iv) The responsibility of either parent for the support of other 
children, whether court ordered or otherwise;

            
(v) The value of services contributed by either 
parent;

            
(vi) Any expenses reasonably related to the mother's pregnancy and 
confinement for that child, if the parents were never married or if the parents 
were divorced prior to the birth of the child;

            
(vii) The cost of transportation of the child to and from 
visitation;

            
(viii) The ability of either or both parents to furnish health, dental 
and vision insurance through employment benefits;

            
(ix) The amount of time the child spends with each 
parent;

            
(x) Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the 
child;

            
(xi) Whether either parent is voluntarily unemployed or 
underemployed.  In such case the 
child support shall be computed based upon the potential earning capacity 
(imputed income) of the unemployed or underemployed parent.  In making that determination the court 
shall consider:

 
 
            
(A) Prior employment experience and history;

(B) 
Educational level and whether additional education would make the parent more 
self-sufficient or significantly increase the parent's 
income;

(C) 
The presence of children of the marriage in the parent's home and its impact on 
the earnings of that parent;

(D) 
Availability of employment for which the parent is 
qualified;

(E) 
Prevailing wage rates in the local area;

(F) 
Special skills or training; and

(G) 
Whether the parent is realistically able to earn imputed 
income.

 
 
            
(xii) Whether or not either parent has violated any provision of the 
divorce decree, including visitation provisions, if deemed relevant by the 
court; and

            
(xiii) Other factors deemed relevant by the court.

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307(b) (LexisNexis 2007). The district court found the lack of 
relationship between Father and Child supported deviation under subsections (ix) 
and (xiii).

 
 
[¶10]   For purposes of this discussion, we 
will overlook the conclusions about Child's feelings towards Father to which the 
district court jumped.  Far more 
important for discussion by this Court is the fallacy of the district court's 
conclusion that the state of a parent-child relationship can serve as the basis 
for a deviation from the presumptive child support amount.  In Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210 (Wyo. 
1995), the Court held:

 
 
[L]ack 
of visitation and negative feelings between a noncustodial parent and child are 
not proper factors that a court may consider in determining whether to deviate 
from the presumptive support guidelines;  
such consideration is, therefore, an abuse of discretion.  Visitation and child support are 
independent from one another; one may not be used to negate or reduce the duty 
relating to the other.  In the case 
at bar, the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the 
magnitude of the negative feelings and the extent of the alienation that has 
occurred between the father and the children warranted a deviation from the 
presumptive child support.  

 
 

Id. 
at 216.  Nothing in this case 
compels us to deviate from this ruling.

 
 
[¶11]   Father attempts to distinguish the 
instant case from Sharpe solely 
because the children at issue in Sharpe were minors whereas Child is an 
able-bodied adult.  This alleged 
distinction is irrelevant in this case.  
The district court did not rely on § 20-2-307(b)(i), the age of Child, in 
making his ruling.  The district 
court relied solely on the relationship, or what it determined to be the lack of 
relationship, between Father and Child.  This is precisely what Sharpe prohibits.  The relationship between Father and 
Child is not an allowable relevant factor as anticipated under § 
20-2-307(b)(xiii).

 
 
[¶12]   The district court's attempt to 
force its reasoning into § 20-2-307(b)(ix), the amount of time Child spends with 
each parent, is also legally faulty.  
All the provisions of § 20-2-307(b) exist to help a court determine the 
most equitable distribution of child support payments between parents.  The amount of time a child spends with 
each parent is relevant in this context only in regard to calculating the 
expenses each parent incurs when physically in custody of a child.  A court cannot rely on this provision to 
fiscally punish a child.  

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶13]   A parent is supposed to be a 
"financial resource" for his/her child.  
It is a responsibility of parenthood.  This responsibility exists regardless of 
visitation or negative feelings between a parent and child.  The district court erred when it used 
these criteria as the basis for deviating from the presumptive child support 
established under § 20-2-304.  The 
district court's decision is reversed.  
This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The issue is not separately stated as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(d).  The issue stated is also too broad to be 
helpful.  It simply advises that 
Mother is appealing from the district court's ruling.  It gives no specific grounds 
therefore.  While the violations are 
not enough to merit sanctions, they present yet again an opportunity for this 
Court to remind counsel they should pay this Court respect by following the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.  
They exist for a reason.  
Individualized issues provide a roadmap for this Court (and counsel) for 
the analysis that follows.

 
 

2Wyo. Stat. Ann. §  20-2-311 
(LexisNexis 2007), "Adjustment of child support orders," states in pertinent 
part:

 
 
Every 
three (3) years, upon the request of either parent or, if there is a current 
assignment of support rights in effect, upon the request of the department, the 
court, with respect to a support order being enforced under this article and 
taking into account the best interests of the child involved, shall review and, 
if appropriate, adjust the order in accordance with the guidelines established 
pursuant to this article.  Any 
adjustment under the three (3) year cycle shall be made without a requirement 
for a showing of a change in circumstances.