Case Title: RICHARD S. STEELE V. LEE ANNE STEELE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
RICHARD S. STEELE V. LEE ANNE STEELE2005 WY 33108 P.3d 844Case Number: 04-117Decided: 03/24/2005
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2004

                                                                                                
    

RICHARD 
S. STEELE,

Appellant

(Plaintiff) 
,

v.

LEE 
ANNE STEELE,

Appellee

(Defendant) 
.

Appeal from theDistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The Honorable 
Thomas C. Campbell, Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

Loretta 
R. Green of Buchhammer & Kehl, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing 
Appellee:

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and BRACKLEY, 
DJ.

HILL, Chief 
Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court; BRACKLEY, District Judge, 
filed a dissenting opinion, with which GOLDEN, Justice, 
joined.

  

HILL, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant, 
Richard S. Steele (Father), contends that the district court erred in ordering 
Appellee, Lee Anne Steele (Mother),1 to pay only the statutory minimum 
support of $50.00 per month.  Father 
also contends that the district court improperly applied the statutory factors 
it is required to consider in deviating from the presumptive child support 
obligation, and that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in applying "other 
factors" contemplated by the governing statute.  We will affirm. 

[¶2]      Father posits 
these issues for our consideration:

I.          
The district court improperly applied the "minimum" child support 
obligation as provided for in Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-304(b).

            
a.  [Mother's] income alone was in excess of $732.00 per 
month.

            
b.  Twenty-five percent of [Mother's] income far exceeds $50.00 
per month.

II.          
The district court improperly applied the factors provided within Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-2-307(b) in granting [Mother] a deviation from her presumptive child 
support obligation.

            
a.  The factors listed in § 20-2-307(b)(i-xii) either favor 
[Father] or are not applicable herein.

III.         
The district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in applying Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-2-307(b)(xiii).

            
a.  The disparity in the party's income is adequately and fully 
addressed in Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-304(a).

            
b.  The district court improperly weighed the financial efforts 
and achievements of [Father] with the assistance of his wife and 
mother.

            
c.  The district court should have considered the legal 
obligation and abilities of [Mother] in determining what, if any, deviation was 
appropriate herein.

Mother 
did not submit a brief or otherwise appear in this Court.

[¶3]      By decree entered 
on July 9, 1993, the parties were divorced.  Under the terms of the decree, as well 
as the parties' stipulation, Father was designated the primary custodian of the 
children.2  A part of the stipulation was that 
Mother would pay the presumptive statutory minimum support of $50.00, although 
the divorce decree provided that she was not required to pay any child 
support.  The record does not reveal 
whether Mother, in fact, paid any child support to Father during the ten-year 
interval between the divorce and the commencement of these proceedings.  At the time of the divorce, Mother was 
the primary care giver and was not employed.  For purposes of making the child support 
computation, minimum wage income was attributed to Mother.

[¶4]      On December 31, 
2002, Mother filed a petition to modify custody, visitation and support in which 
she asked for primary custody of the children.  It suffices here to note that Mother 
based her motion on an allegation that both Father and his new wife imposed 
overly harsh physical discipline on the children and that the children lived in 
an overly strict, stressful, and fearful environment.  A guardian ad litem was appointed for 
the children.  A custody evaluation 
was accomplished and, although it is not a part of the record on appeal, it is 
apparent from the record that the evaluator recommended that Father should 
remain the primary custodian and Mother should have additional visitation.  Father filed a counter-motion on January 
17, 2003, in which he asserted that the status quo should be maintained, except 
that Mother should be required to pay child support.  It is also apparent from the record that 
no adjustments were made to the parties' child support obligations in the 
intervening ten years.  Father 
alleged that, in applying the presumptive child support established by the 
governing statute, the support amount would change by 20% or more from the 
amount in the existing order.  
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 20-2-311 (LexisNexis 2003).  
Mother took the position that while there were changes in circumstances 
that counseled in favor of a change of custody, there was not a change in 
circumstances that counseled in favor of modifying the original decree with 
respect to child support.

[¶5]      On February 25, 
2004, the parties filed a "Stipulated Modified Child Custody and Visitation 
Agreement."  With respect to 
custody, it provided:  "The 
[parents] agree to maintain joint legal custody with primary residential care, 
custody and control provided to [Father].  
[Mother] shall enjoy liberal secondary parenting rights and 
responsibilities as the parties herein agree, but no less than those provided in 
Section 2 herein."  The parties were 
unable to agree on child support, so that issue was presented to the district 
court for resolution.

[¶6]      A hearing was 
held on March 16, 2004, to address child support.  The court reporter was not present at 
the hearing, thus it was not reported and no transcript is available.  With respect to Mother, the record 
contains three financial affidavits (filed on November 14, 2003, net income 
$1,271.05; January 26, 2004, net income $569.87; and March 16, 2004, net income 
$950.00).  The record also clearly 
demonstrates that Father has a substantial income.

[¶7]      On April 7, 2004, 
the district court issued a decision letter3 that contained this summary of the 
evidence it had before it:

            
The Court takes into consideration many factors, primarily the disparate 
financial positions of the parties, but also the questions of what relief was 
being requested and by what party.  
Here the Court finds the fees for the guardian ad litem should be paid by 
[Father].  It appears from the file 
that such payment is complete in any event.  The Court, noting that the guardian ad 
litem requested the involvement of the custody evaluator and that [Father] 
utilized his resources to ensure that that was done, will order repayment of 
one-half of the custody evaluation, $3,000, by each party.  [Mother] is to receive credit for $700 
paid up through the time of trial, with the remaining $2,300 to be paid at the 
rate of $100 a month.

            
The more difficult issue was that of child support.  The Court notes that the financial 
position of [Mother] has not substantially changed in over ten years.  The original agreement of the parties 
was that because of her financial circumstances deviation to $50.00 a month was 
appropriate.  There has been no 
substantial change of that circumstance other than the most recent job of 
[Mother] (judging by her affidavit) now pays her somewhat above minimum 
wage.  Even during the pendency of 
this proceeding, [Mother's] jobs changed, and her affidavit in January indicated 
$569 of net income, and now indicates approximately $950 of net income.  The Court will find that $950 is her net 
income, and find that [Father's] net income is that indicated only on his 
affidavit4 (though there was much discussion 
about whether that was accurate).  
However, because of all of the evidence of the financial circumstances of 
[Mother], will deviate downward.  
Once the computation is made it should be included in the order, but 
should instead reflect a downward deviation to $75 per month.  There is, given the history of the case, 
little reason to believe that it is in the interests of the children to order 
the presumed child support amount be paid by the mother.  Quite the contrary, the Court was nearly 
persuaded that the agreement of the parties, the $50 minimum, should not be 
modified at all.  This small change 
in child support, combined with the requirement to pay one-half of the child 
custody evaluator expenses will inordinately burden [Mother] even at that very 
low rate, while not appreciably changing the financial circumstances of the 
father or the children.

[¶8]      The order from 
which this appeal is taken was entered on April 27, 2004, and it departs 
somewhat from the decision letter and provides, in pertinent part, as 
follows:

            
THAT the Court finds that there are changes of circumstances such that 
child support should be modified; however, the court further finds that it is 
appropriate to deviate from the presumptive child support.

            
THAT the Court finds that the parties have entered into a fair and 
equitable stipulation resolving the issues of custody, visitation and health 
insurance.

            
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [Father] shall be solely responsible for the 
payment of the fees and costs owed to the guardian ad 
litem.

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be equally responsible for 
the costs of the custody evaluation, with [Mother] to reimburse [Father] for 
one-half of the amounts he has paid to the custody evaluator with credit for 
$800.00 previously paid to [Father] during the pendency of this action.  The remaining reimbursement of $2,200.00 
shall be paid by [Mother] to [Father] through the Clerk of the District Court in 
the amount of $25.00 per month beginning on the first day of April, 2004 and 
continuing on the first of each month thereafter until the total owed [Father] 
is paid in full.  No judgment shall 
issue at this time.

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds that there has been a 
substantial change of circumstances such that this Court can modify child 
support in this case, with reasons to include primarily that [Mother] is 
employed and has been employed for the great majority of the time since the 
entry of the Decree of Divorce and that [Father] is financially responsible for 
several additional dependents.  The 
Court finds that the presumptive child support is $227.00 per month from 
[Mother] to [Father].

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court finds that there are reasons to 
deviate from the presumptive child support in this matter.  The principal reasons that the court 
finds it appropriate to deviate from the presumptive child support include 1) 
the financial disparity between the parties; 2) the [Father's] overwhelming 
ability to provide for the financial needs of the children; and 3) that it is in 
the best interests of the minor children.

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that child support in this matter shall deviate to 
the amount of $50.00 per month child support from [Mother] to 
[Father].

[¶9]      On April 29, 
2004, Father filed a document entitled "Statement of Evidence and Proceeding" 
that was submitted for the purposes of this appeal pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
3.03.  That rule 
provides:

If no 
report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a 
transcript is unavailable, appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or 
proceedings from the best available means including appellant's 
recollection.  The statement shall 
be served on appellee, who may serve objections or propose amendments within 15 
days after service.  The statement 
and any objections or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the trial court 
for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the 
clerk of the trial court in the record on appeal.

The 
document was served on Mother's attorney.  
By order entered on May 10, 2004, Mother's attorney was permitted to 
withdraw from her representation of Mother.  Mother made no objection to the 
statement, but the record does not reflect that the trial court settled or 
approved the statement as required by the rule.

[¶10]   The applicable standard of review 
is well known and we will not repeat it in detail here.  See Ready v. Ready, 2003 WY 121, 
¶11, 76 P.3d 836, ¶11 (Wyo. 2003).  
However, with respect to the issue at hand we include this refinement of 
the more general standard:

The 
child support guidelines identify a base from which the judge must invoke the 
exercise of discretion.  In the 
absence of an agreement with respect to child support, the guidelines will have 
a more significant controlling impact.  
When an agreement as to child support is involved, however, more weight 
may be given to the agreement.  
Child support agreements entered into by the parties are favored by the 
courts.

Smith v. 
Smith, 895 P.2d 37, 41 (Wyo. 1995); also see Sharpe v. 
Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210 (Wyo. 1995); and Wright v. Wright, 5 P.3d 61, 62-63 (Wyo. 2000).

[¶11]   We also have noted " the child 
support guidelines manifest a presumption that the typical welfare and needs of 
children will be met by the minimum child support levels given the earning 
ability of the parent."  Madison v. Madison, 859 P.2d 1276, 1279 (Wyo. 1993).  Further, we have 
opined:

A trial 
court should give serious consideration to the support guidelines.  However, strictly following the 
guidelines blindly would nullify the court's traditional discretion and would 
not be in the interest of justice in all circumstances.  The guidelines set out in the statute 
were not crafted to give any special protection or advantage to a parent owing 
support.  Guidelines are just 
that--guidelines, and do not accommodate to all circumstances or cases.  As a matter of policy, we are hesitant 
to impinge on the trial court's historic discretion.

Holtz v. 
State ex rel. Houston, 847 P.2d 972 (Wyo. 
1993).

[¶12]   The inescapable conclusion, 
however, is that the presumptive support table set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-2-304(a) (LexisNexis 2003) does have the effect of circumscribing the trial 
court's discretion in calculating child support awards.5  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307 (LexisNexis 
2003) provides, in pertinent part:

(a)  The 
presumptive child support established by W.S. 20-2-304 shall be 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.  Every order or decree 
providing for the support of a child shall set forth the presumptive child 
support amount and shall state whether the order or decree departs from that 
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.  [Emphasis added.]

[¶13]   In order to achieve accuracy in 
calculating support, the district court must ensure that adequate financial 
information is available to it.  To 
this end, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308 (LexisNexis 2003) 
provides:

(a)  No 
order establishing or modifying a child support obligation shall be entered 
unless financial affidavits on a form approved by the Wyoming supreme court 
which fully discloses the financial status of the parties have been filed, or 
the court has held a hearing and testimony has been 
received.

            
(b)  Financial affidavits of the parties shall be supported 
with documentation of both current and past earnings.  Suitable documentation of current 
earnings includes but is not limited to pay stubs, employer statements, or 
receipts and expenses if self-employed.  
Documentation of current earnings shall be supplemented with copies of 
the most recent tax return to provide verification of earnings over a longer 
period.

            
(c)  The court may require, or the parents may agree, to 
exchange financial and other appropriate information once a year or less often, 
by regular mail, for the purpose of analyzing the propriety of modification of 
court ordered child support.

            
(d)  All financial affidavits and records required by law to be 
attached to the affidavit shall constitute a confidential file and are subject 
to inspection by persons other than the parties, their attorneys or the 
department of family services to the extent necessary to enforce the Child 
Support Enforcement Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act only by 
court order.

[¶14]   The system for establishing and 
enforcing child support orders is part of a federal mandate for a program in 
which Wyoming 
is a participant.  42 U.S.C. 
§ 667 (2003); and see 3 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and 
Practice, § 33.08[2] (Deviation Under the Federal Mandates) (2004).  With respect to the question immediately 
at hand, Professor Rutkin provides this guidance:

            
The third approach, the open-ended deviation criteria, provides broadly 
stated and open-ended grounds for deviating; such as the court's conclusion that 
the orders pursuant to the guidelines would be unfair, inappropriate, or 
inequitable.  Court's have used this 
approach when they felt that the guideline amount would result in a "windfall" 
for the custodial parent and child.  
Deviation has also been acceptable when the evidence clearly established 
that the child did not "need" the scheduled amount.  The problem with open-ended deviation 
criteria is that they may allow more judicial discretion than the federal 
statutes intended, which could create problems for the states.  This could also be a problem with 
specific open-ended criteria such as "the child's best interests," which would 
allow a court to bypass the presumption of the guidelines intended by the 
federal statutes.

Id. at 
33-94-95.

[¶15]   Wyoming's statute uses some open-ended 
criteria, i.e., "unjust or inappropriate" for the particular case at hand.  However, that is immediately qualified 
by the requirement that specific findings be made, and that includes any 
findings pertaining to "other factors deemed relevant by the 
court."

[¶16]   Here, the articulated bases for 
downward deviation fall into the "other factors" category.  Some potential criteria for downward 
deviation are specified in 2 Jeff Atkinson, Modern Child Custody Practice 
(Second Edition), § 11-41 (Checklist: Departure from guidelines) 
(2004):

Bases 
for support guidelines:

·                    
unusual 
custody arrangements, such as split custody or joint custody with the children 
spending substantial amounts of time with both parents;

·                    
high 
costs of transportation for visitation (such as if noncustodial parent must pay 
for interstate travel in order to be with children);

·                    
high 
income of obligor parent (which, if guidelines were applied, would provide 
windfall to other parent of funds beyond child's reasonable 
needs);

·                    
obligor's 
duties of support to other families, including new spouse and 
children;

·                    
obligor's 
support of elderly or disabled relatives;

·                    
obligor's 
debts (particularly if the debts were incurred during marriage to spouse seeking 
support);

·                    
obligor's 
need to channel funds into closely held business (which may provide later 
increased income for benefit of child for whom support is 
sought);

·                    
income 
of spouse of custodial parent;

·                    
property 
division (e.g., award to custodial parent of income-producing property or 
marital home with low mortgage payments);

·                    
direct 
payment by obligor of certain expenses (e.g., mortgage on custodial parent's 
home, private school tuition, summer camp lessons);

·                    
payment 
of alimony in addition to child support;

·                    
unfavorable 
tax consequences to obligor of property and support 
awards;

·                    
significant 
income of child (earned or unearned).

[¶17]   With the above background in mind, 
we must also consider the condition of the record on appeal.  The hearing or trial portion of this 
case was not reported and no transcript is available.  The statement of the evidence provided 
by Father was not accomplished in the manner contemplated by the rules.  While we do not doubt that it may be 
accurate in most respects, we will not accept it as a part of the record on 
appeal because it was not done as required by the governing rule.  W.R.A.P. 3.03.  We are left then with only the sketchy 
financial data that is in the confidential file, as well as the thin findings 
made by the district court.  As the 
proponent of this appeal, it was Father's burden to bring us a complete record 
for review.  Chancler v. 
Meredith, 2004 WY 27, ¶5, 86 P.3d 841, ¶5 (Wyo. 2004).

[¶18]   The child support ordered in this 
case is consistent with the 1993 agreement entered into by the parties.  Lacking a complete record, we are 
compelled to assume the complete record would serve to sustain the district 
court's findings.  The record that 
is available to us does not serve to clearly demonstrate that the district court 
abused its discretion or that it acted arbitrarily or capriciously.  However, we take note here that its 
findings were superficial and conclusory in many respects.  Nonetheless, we conclude that the 
district court's order should be affirmed in these 
circumstances.

[¶19]   The order of the district court is 
affirmed.

  

BRACKLEY, 
District Judge, dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.

[¶20]   I respectfully offer this 
dissenting viewpoint.  In my 
opinion, this modification order, on its face, fails to comply with statutes and 
prior case law.  The record is more 
than sufficient to support this holding.  
Therefore, I would reverse. 

[¶21]   Here, the trial court found that 
material changes in circumstances warranted a change in previously ordered 
support.  The trial court properly 
entered net income findings and calculated statutory, presumptive support.  Then, the trial court deviated from 
statutory guidelines and ordered minimum support (significantly lower than the 
presumptive amount).  The record 
does not contain lawful findings for deviation nor does it contain findings 
supporting the conclusion that the order was in the best interests of the 
children.  "Financial disparity" 
between parents and/or one parent's "ability to provide for the financial needs" 
of children are not reasons to deviate from statutory support.  These factors can support a conclusion 
that a child's best interests are not harmed when there are legitimate reasons 
to deviate downward from presumptive support.

[¶22]   Children have the right to share in 
the financial circumstances of both 
parents.  Neither courts nor parents can 
circumvent this right.  
Inadvertently, this decision could jeopardize traditional notions 
concerning child support law and cause some policy concerns.  For example: (1) What tests or standards 
allow trial courts to say, "The custodial parent makes plenty of money to 
support the family.  So, this order 
will not require this non-custodial parent to pay as much child support as 
others in the same income bracket?" and (2) Arguably, the majority decision will 
make it easier for one parent to tell the other, "If you do not challenge 
custody, I will not ask the court for statutory support."  Stipulated decrees not conforming to law 
will be presented to, and entered by, uninformed trial 
judges. 

[¶23]   In support of the foregoing, please 
review Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307 (LexisNexis 2003), and the discussion 
about child support in Raymond v. 
Raymond, 956 P.2d 329, 334 (    
Wyo. 1998) where we 
said:

A 
deviation from the guidelines is permitted only when the trial court makes a 
finding that it would be unjust or inappropriate to follow them in a particular 
case and 
it specifically sets forth in full the reasons therefor[.]  [Emphasis 
added.]

FOOTNOTES

   1Mother remarried and her name is now 
Lee Anne Conde.

   2The children were born on May 9, 
1990, and October 18, 1991.

   3Neither the decision letter, nor the 
district court's order from which this appeal was taken, was attached to 
Father's brief.  See W.R.A.P. 
7.01(j).

  4His financial affidavit showed a net 
income of $1,750.70, though his tax return showed a much higher gross 
income.  However, the later figure 
was from a joint return with his new wife, as well as income from 
investments.

5Although 
the governing statutes remain quite similar to what they were in 1992-93, the 
statutory directives to the district court have been enlarged upon in the 
intervening years.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 
20-6-301 through 20-6-306 (Michie 1992 Cum. Supp.).