Case Title: Miller v. Miller

Citation: 178 Vt. 273, 2005 VT 89, 882 A.2d 1196

Docket Number: 2004-152

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Miller v. Miller (2004-152); 178 Vt. 273; 882 A.2d 1196

2005 VT 89

[Filed 29-Jul-2005]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2005 VT 89

                                No. 2004-152
  	

  Jeffrey Miller	                         Supreme Court
  	
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Chittenden Family Court

  Megan Miller	                                 December Term, 2004	

  Mark J. Keller, J.

  Jeffrey Miller, Pro Se, Winooski, Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Mary G. Kirkpatrick of Lisman, Webster, Kirkpatrick & Leckerling, P.C.,
    Burlington, for  Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber,  JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.)
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned 

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Megan Miller appeals the family court's
  decision denying her an additional-dependent adjustment under 15 V.S.A. §
  656a.  Miller asserts that the family court erred by not allowing her to
  deduct discretionary expenses she spent on her son from June 2003 to the
  present.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The parties are the mother and father of an eight-year-old
  child named Cole.  Mother, Megan Miller, has physical custody of Cole. 
  Father, Jeffrey Miller, shares legal custody of Cole and pays child support
  to mother for Cole.  
   
       ¶  3.  Until September 19, 2002, Ryan, mother's child from a prior
  relationship, lived with mother in Vermont.  Because Ryan was living with
  her, mother received a $404 monthly additional-dependent adjustment that
  reduced her available income in the child-support worksheet for Cole, and
  thus increased father's support obligation.  After Ryan moved out of
  mother's home to live with his father Christopher Gogan in Maine, father
  petitioned to modify the child-support order for Cole. Father argued that
  Ryan's move was a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of
  circumstances that made mother ineligible for the additional-dependent
  adjustment.  

       ¶  4.  The magistrate ruled in favor of father in June 2003, holding
  that mother was ineligible for an additional-dependent adjustment because
  mother no longer had a duty to support Ryan.  The magistrate reasoned that
  because Ryan was now living with Gogan in Maine and mother was not
  providing for Ryan's needs on a daily basis, mother had more available
  income to spend on Cole.  Although the magistrate recognized that mother
  provides some support for Ryan by purchasing items that he "needs," the
  magistrate characterized mother's expenditures as "voluntary payments . . .
  made at her sole discretion" because she was not obligated to pay any sums
  for Ryan's benefit by a formal child-support order.  Without the
  additional-dependent adjustment for Ryan, mother's monthly available income
  figure increased, thus reducing father's support obligation for Cole.
   
       ¶  5.  In September 2003, (FN1) mother and Gogan stipulated to their
  parental rights and responsibilities for Ryan.  Gogan assumed sole physical
  custody, while both parents agreed to share legal custody.  As a result of
  the stipulation, mother and Gogan modified their child-support order for
  Ryan.  The October 30, 2003 child-support order stated that mother was
  obligated to pay Gogan $89 per month.  This amount was reduced to $0 to
  settle the parties' claims against each other for unpaid child support
  allegedly owed.  Mother claimed that Gogan did not pay child support when
  Ryan was living with her prior to his move to Maine, and Gogan alleged that
  mother owed arrears for the 2002-2003 year that Ryan lived with him in
  Maine.  In consideration of the arrears, costs mother incurs when she
  travels to Maine to visit Ryan, and the cost of support when Ryan visits
  mother in Vermont, the parties agreed to nullify mother's legal
  child-support obligation.

       ¶  6.  In October 2003, mother moved to modify the magistrate's June
  2003 order seeking to regain an additional-dependent adjustment for money
  she spent on Ryan.  The magistrate denied the motion on December 4, 2003. 
  The magistrate made findings on the amount of time Ryan spent with mother
  in Vermont: two nights in September and October 2003, five nights in
  November 2003, an estimated ten nights in December, and seven nights in
  February and April 2004.  The magistrate also found that mother purchased
  hockey equipment and clothing for Ryan.  Consistent with the previous
  order, the magistrate ruled that the overnights and voluntary expenditures
  on miscellaneous items did not make mother eligible for an adjustment
  because Gogan was still Ryan's primary custodian. 
   
       ¶  7.  Mother appealed both of the magistrate's orders to the family
  court.  The family court affirmed on March 8, 2004, concluding that a
  noncustodial parent, like mother, can claim an adjustment only if the she
  meets "the burden of proving the extent and nature of [her] financial
  responsibility for the additional child."  The court broadened the
  magistrate's test, making it possible for noncustodial parents to be
  eligible for an adjustment upon showing that they have assumed a duty to
  provide for their additional child's needs by spending sums that are
  comparable to the guideline amount on food, housing, and clothing. 
  Applying this standard, the court affirmed the magistrate's decision that
  mother did not demonstrate her eligibility for an adjustment.

       ¶  8.  On appeal, mother contends that the family court erred by not
  allowing her to receive an additional-dependent adjustment for her
  financial contributions to support Ryan, including travel expenses when she
  visits Ryan in Maine, costs incurred when Ryan visits Vermont, and
  miscellaneous items mother purchased for Ryan, such as sports equipment.

       ¶  9.  The issue in this case is whether a noncustodial parent may
  claim an additional-dependent adjustment under 15 V.S.A. § 656a.  We hold
  that noncustodial parents are not eligible for a § 656a income adjustment
  for additional dependents because this section  allows only custodial
  parents who provide primary child support and spend the child-support
  guideline amount to receive an adjustment.  As a noncustodial parent,
  mother is not, therefore, eligible for an additional-dependent adjustment.

       ¶  10.  Whether the family court properly construed § 656a is a
  question of law that we review de novo.  Office of Child Support v. Sholan,
  172 Vt. 619, 620,