Title: Smith v. Francisco

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

737 A.2d 1000 (1999)
Joseph W. SMITH, Jr., Petitioner Below, Appellant,
v.
Diane E. FRANCISCO, Respondent Below, Appellee.
No. 473, 1998.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: May 25, 1999.
Decided: August 13, 1999.
Joseph W. Smith, Jr., pro se.
Robert Burton Coonin, of Berkowitz, Schagrin, Coonin and Cooper, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, JJ.
HOLLAND, Justice:
The petitioner-appellant, Joseph W. Smith, Jr. (the "Father") and the respondent-appellee, Diane E. Francisco (the "Mother"), were married on June 28, 1991. Three and one-half years later the parties separated. During a brief attempted reconciliation, the Mother became pregnant. In September of 1995, the Father petitioned *1001 for divorce. The Divorce Decree was granted by the Family Court on December 8, 1995.
In this appeal, the Father challenges the final child support judgment entered by the Family Court on multiple grounds. The Father also challenges a separate final judgment awarding the Mother attorney's fees in a visitation dispute. We have concluded that: the child support judgment must be reversed, because the Family Court misapplied the Melson Formula; and, the judgment awarding attorney's fees must be affirmed.
The parties' child, Bret, was born on March 24, 1996. The Mother filed an original Petition for Child Support on September 5, 1996. On November 27, 1996, the Family Court entered an interim child support order requiring the Father to pay the Mother $434 per month "pending modification upon application."
Bret's parents have joint custody. Bret's primary residence, however, is with the Mother. Pursuant to separate judgments by the Family Court, the Father exercises overnight visitation with his son approximately 130 nights per year, or approximately 11 nights per month (not including holidays and the two-week vacation period). Bret is also in the Father's care for eight or more hours on 233 days a year. Bret is in his Father's care every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the parents divide Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The record reflects that the Father's contact schedule with Bret is more than twice the amount of time that the normal Family Court guidelines provide for a non-custodial parent.[1]
On May 27, 1997, the Father filed a Petition for Modification of Child Support. As of that date, no hearing on a permanent child support order had been scheduled by the Family Court. Almost one year passed before a Family Court Master entered a child support order on April 14, 1998. The Father filed an appeal de novo.
On October 5, 1998, a judge of the Family Court conducted a de novo child support hearing. The parties stipulated to their incomes during the relevant periods of time. The Father's stipulated income was $3,257 gross per month during the years 1997 and 1998. The Mother's stipulated monthly gross income was $1,655 during 1997 and $1,722 during 1998. Following the de novo hearing, the trial judge established child support in accordance with the Melson Formula, and ordered it to be paid retroactively.
In establishing child support, the Family Court is directed by statute to consider a number of factors:
Congress mandated that each state adopt child support guidelines, as a condition *1002 for receiving certain federal funds.[3] Congress subsequently required that those guidelines operate as a rebuttable presumption.[4] Congress also directed each state to review and update its child support guidelines periodically.[5]
The guidelines used by the Family Court in support cases preceded the Congressional mandate and are known as the Melson Formula.[6] The three basic principles of the Melson Formula are:
The Melson Formula originated as a matter of common law and evolved from these three basic principles into a sophisticated algebraic equation that has both fixed and variable components.[8] The Melson Formula has been described as the most comprehensive child support model extant in the United States due to the number of factors directly addressed in calculating the initial presumptive determination.[9]
The Melson Formula's principles are currently set forth in Delaware Family Court Civil Rule 52(c):
An integral part of Family Court Civil Rule 52(c) are two comprehensive official forms that are currently used in its application.[11]
*1003 The Melson Formula operates as a rebuttable presumption in calculating child support in Delaware.[12] "As a rebuttable presumption, the Delaware procedure provides for a uniform approach to child support decisions, unless the Family Court is persuaded that an application of the Melson Formula would be inequitable."[13] One decade ago, this Court held that the "procedure used by the Family Court of the State of Delaware, in deciding child support cases, known as the Melson Formula, and reflected in Family Court Rule 52(c) and its official Forms 509(p) and 509 is consistent with the letter and spirit of 13 Del.C. §§ 504, 514 and 10 Del.C. § 907(5)."[14]
Although the basic principles of the Melson Formula have remained constant, its sophistication has increased. In accordance with the federal funding mandate, the Delaware Child Support Formula has been reviewed quadrennially. A committee is appointed by the Chief Judge of the Family Court to review the Delaware guidelines and recommend revisions every four years. All of the Family Court judges consider those recommendations and decide what, if any, adjustments should be made to the Melson Formula.
Over the last decade, the General Assembly's statutory mandate and Family Court Rule 52(c) have not changed. The periodic review process has resulted in modifications, however, to the Family Court's official forms. Accordingly, we must determine whether the revisions to the Melson Formula that are reflected in the present official forms remain consistent with the General Assembly's statutory directives for establishing child support awards.
The process of periodically reviewing the Melson Formula has resulted in quantitative changes to the fixed components of the Family Court official forms and has also caused modifications in the weight that some of the variable components in the Melson Formula are initially accorded. The changes to fixed components are illustrated by revisions to the Melson Formula's self-support reserve for the non-custodial or secondary residence parent that was set at $550 in 1990, $620 in 1994, and $750 in 1998. The evolving changes given to some of the variable components in the Melson Formula are illustrated by the issue in this case, i.e., the initial weight to be given for visitation by the non-custodial or secondary residence parent that exceeds the normal visitation schedule.
The 1990 Delaware quadrennial child support review committee consulted Robert G. Williams, Ph.D., a nationally recognized expert on child support guidelines, to assist in the preparation of the 1990 Delaware Child Support Formula Evaluation and Update ("1990 Report").[15] Dr. Williams performed an economic analysis of the Melson Formula under the aegis of the Child Support Guidelines Project of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.[16] As part of that analysis, Dr. Williams informed the Delaware Committee that some state child support guidelines *1004 allow an adjustment for extended visitation when at least 25 to 30% of the child's nights are spent with the payor.[17] Dr. Williams' report on the Melson Formula included the following analysis and recommendation:
The 1990 Report of the Delaware Child Support Committee recommended permitting the consideration of a downward adjustment in the Melson Formula's initial calculation to compensate the payor for the *1005 increased expenditures that were concomitant with an extended visitation schedule. The Delaware Family Court judges adopted that suggestion to prevent the initial calculations of child support orders in Delaware from being inequitable.[19] When the Family Court official forms were revised in 1990, the instructions provided:
An adjustment for extended visitation in the initial Melson Formula calculation meant that the primary residence parent received less child support than would be provided for under a basic visitation schedule. Consequently, the burden was on the primary residence parent to rebut the presumptive applicability of the Melson Formula calculation by demonstrating that it was inequitable to adjust the child support award downward in an amount that was attributable to the extended visitation of the non-custodial or secondary residence parent.
Since 1994, however, the official Family Court forms have provided for the initial presumptive amount of child support to be calculated without regard to any extended visitation unless the child spends equal time with each parent. The 1994 Delaware Child Support Formula Committee Report on the Evaluation and Update of the Formula ("1994 Report") recommended that:
The Family Court changed the instructions with its official child support forms in 1994 to state that "the amount of monthly child support owed depends on the custody arrangement for the child(ren) and the child support obligation of each parent. An adjustment may result if the parents share custody and residence of the child(ren) by agreement or by prior court order. There will be no adjustment to the calculation for `extreme' visitation schedules."
The October 1, 1998 ("1998 Report") quadrennial review of the Delaware Melson Child Support Formula reiterated the 1994 philosophy defining "shared residence" as a 50/50 division of time and further refined that 1994 paradigm shift in the Melson Formula's initial calculation. That recommendation in the 1998 Report was approved by the Delaware Family Court's judges and is now reflected in the Instructions For Child Support Calculation, as follows:
Therefore, the burden is now on the non-custodial or secondary residence parent, who has increased visitation that does not equal one-half of the child's time, to demonstrate that it would be inequitable not to make a reduction in the Melson Formula's initial calculation on the basis of the proportionate time the child spends with each parent.
There has been considerable expert commentary about the economics of child rearing and equitable models have been developed for determining child support on the basis of the child's proportionate time with each parent when that time exceeds basic visitation.[22] The experts have failed to agree on a single economic approach for properly determining child support in an extended visitation arrangement. There does appear to be a consensus among the experts, however, that the equities of making an adjustment in a child support award because of extended visitation can be decided most equitably on a case-by-case basis.
The Family Court's current official forms reflect the philosophical changes in the Melson Formula's initial consideration of extended visitation schedules during the last decade. In fact, those official forms are different in many respects from the ones that were before this Court when Dalton was decided. Nevertheless, we have concluded that the Family Court's current official forms are compatible with the statutory mandate for the same reasons that this Court stated ten years ago;
When a non-custodial or secondary residence parent has extended visitation, the equitable issue remains the same today as it always has been during the Melson Formula's evolution. The changes in the Family Court official forms from 1990 to 1998, with regard to computing the initial presumptive child support determination, have simply shifted the burden of making *1007 the equitable argument in an extended visitation arrangement from the primary residence parent to the non-custodial or secondary residence parent. The ultimate focus for the Family Court in an extended visitation arrangement continues to be the statutory mandate to consider "the general equities inherent in the situation" before the entry of the final child support award.[24]
A proper application of the Melson Formula requires more than the mechanical use of an algebraic equation.[25] The sine qua non of the Melson Formula's compatibility with the Delaware General Assembly's statutory mandate is the Family Court's acknowledgment that the initial calculation operates as a rebuttable presumption.[26] In this case, the Family Court acknowledged that the Melson Formula operates as a rebuttable presumption but misconstrued how to treat the Father's extended visitation argument in making the initial calculation and, as a result of that error, did not properly apply the Melson Formula as a rebuttable presumption.
The Father argued that the presumptive applicability of the Melson Formula's initial calculation was rebutted because the result was inequitable under the circumstances of his extended visitation schedule. In response to that argument, the trial judge quoted the following passage from the 1998 Delaware Child Support Formula Evaluation Report:
The trial judge acknowledged that the "Father has more than the Standard Visitation that the Family Court follows: but did not meet the definition of "shared residence" because the visitation arrangement did not result in a 50/50 division of [Bret's] time between the parties." The trial judge then held that because the Father had not rebutted the Melson Formula by exhibiting shared residence "the presumptive applicability of the Delaware Child Support Guidelines shall be followed."
The fallacy in the Family Court's analysis is the failure to recognize that extended visitation schedules have always been a weighted variable component in the Melson Formula's algebraic equation. In the current Melson Formula, no weight is given to an extended visitation schedule in making the initial calculation unless there is a 50/50 division of the child's time between the parties. If there is a 50/50 division of the child's time, however, that 50% magnitude of extended visitation is accorded proper weight in making the initial Melson Formula calculation.
In this case, the Father's extended visitation schedule could not properly be considered in making the initial Melson Formula calculation because it did not constitute 50% of Bret's time. The Father, however, was entitled to equitable review by the Family Court on the issue of whether the presumptive applicability of the initial calculation had been rebutted. *1008 Unfortunately, the Family Court in properly rejecting the Father's extended visitation argument relating to the initial calculation incorrectly construed the Father's burden as being the necessity to rebut the Melson Formula's presumptive applicability before that initial computation was made.
Properly framed, the issue before the Family Court required an initial calculation pursuant to the Melson Formula without any adjustment for the Father's extended visitation and, thereafter, a consideration of whether the equities in the Father's extended visitation schedule rebutted the presumptive applicability of the initial calculation. The approach used by the Family Court would always deny any equitable consideration to a parent with extended visitation that was not tantamount to a 50/50 division of the child's time. The Family Court's refusal to consider any equitable adjustment to the Father's extended visitation schedule because it did not constitute a 50/50 division of Bret's time is inconsistent with this Court's holding in Dalton:
The proper use of the Melson Formula as a rebuttable presumption is only considered after the initial mathematical calculation has been made.[29]
We hold that the Family Court committed reversible error by not properly addressing the Father's contention that the presumptive applicability of the initial mathematical calculation of the Melson Formula had been rebutted by his extended visitation schedule. In this case, the facts may, or may not, support a conclusion that the Father has sustained his burden of overcoming the presumptive applicability of the Melson Formula. The Family Court must make that determination in the first instance. Only after the Family Court properly considers the presumptive applicability of the initial Melson Formula calculation and, thereafter gives the reasons for its ultimate conclusion can there be meaningful appellate review in this case.[30]
The record reflects that the Father had been making child support payments directly to the Mother prior to the institution of a wage attachment against him. The parties reached an agreement that child support payments in the amount of $7,956 had been paid directly to the Mother by the Father prior to the imposition of the wage attachment. Accordingly, the Family Court ordered that the Father be credited with that stipulated amount.
The Mother's attorney was apparently under the mistaken impression, however, that after the wage attachment, the Father's child support payments had been processed through the Division of Child Support Enforcement and stated that on the record to the trial judge. The Father did not object to the accuracy of that statement by the Mother's attorney. In reliance on this representation, the trial judge directed the Division of Child Support *1009 Enforcement to credit the Father with any additional payments that the Father made by virtue of the wage attachment.
In this appeal, the Father argues that, since the wage attachment resulted in direct payments to the Mother, the Division of Child Support Enforcement cannot use its records to give him proper credit for those payments. The Mother acknowledges the validity of that argument in this Court. The Mother's appellate attorney has represented that she will cooperate completely in properly crediting the Father with all direct payments she received pursuant to the wage attachment.
The child support judgment is being reversed for the reasons stated in the preceding portions of this opinion. Consequently, this matter will be remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings on the subject of child support. Upon remand, the Family Court should enter an appropriate order regarding the Father's request for proper credit on all child support payments that the Mother received directly before and after the wage attachment. The Family Court should also permit the Father to reargue why any final child support judgment should not be entered retroactively.
The Family Court ordered that the Father pay $360 to reimburse the Mother for the attorney's fees she incurred in defense of the Father's unsuccessful Motion for Reargument on the Family Court's denial of the Father's Motion to Revise Visitation Schedule. The Father filed the motion leading to the $360 attorney fee award two months after the Family Court ruled on the Father's Motion for Reargument following a remand from this Court. The Father argues that the attorney fee award was a punitive response by the Family Court to the Father's Motion for Reargument.
The Family Court has broad discretion in assessing attorney's fees.[31] Therefore, this Court must apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard of appellate review. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, this Court must affirm the Family Court's award even though we may have reached a different conclusion. The record does not reflect an abuse of discretion.
The final judgment on the subject of child support is reversed. The final judgment awarding $360 in attorney's fees is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
The Family Court of the State of Delaware has established the Delaware Child Support Formula under Civil Rule 52(c). This formula outlines the procedure for determining child support awards in the state of Delaware. The formula is based on the following principles:
In determining each parent's child support obligation the Court considers each parent's ability to pay. Ability to pay includes: the health, income and financial circumstances, and earning capacity of the parties, including the children. The manner of living to which the parties have been accustomed when they were living under the same roof and the general equities inherent in the situation are also considered. See 13 Delaware Code § 514.
The Delaware Child Support Guideline serves as a rebuttable presumption for establishing all child support awards in the state of Delaware. The Court will use the formula in setting support unless it finds that the results would not be in the best interest of the child(ren) or would be inequitable to the parties involved. See, e.g. Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1197 (1989).
Net income is used for calculating the child support amount under the Delaware Child Support Formula. Figure net income by taking monthly gross income and subtracting allowable payroll deductions. Monthly gross income and allowable deductions are defined below.
Note: all figures for this section and other sections must be made in monthly amounts. If figures are given in weekly amounts then multiply the amount by 52 and then divide by 12 to get the correct monthly amount. If figures are for biweekly amounts then multiply the amount by 26 and then divide by 12.
Line 1
Attributed Income: When an able parent is not working full time or is working below full earning capacity, determine why there is a limitation on earnings. See, e.g. DCSE v. James Barrows, Del. Supr., No 147, 1989 Holland, J. (February 21, 1990); R.T. v. R.T., Del.Supr., 494 A.2d 150 (1985); Dolgas v. Dolgas, Del.Fam., No.1974-85, Gallagher, J. (December 9, 1988). If the obligor has voluntarily chosen to earn less than his/ her capacity the Court will attribute income. First, look at the obligor's previous earning history to see what type of earnings potential he/she has. If no earnings history is present look at the obligors employment qualifications. Determine what someone with comparable qualifications would earn in the local job market. The Court may use wage surveys published by government agencies to assist in attributing income. These surveys will be available in the Law Libraries of each Family Court. If income is attributed in either of these two fashions use withholding tables to determine the appropriate withholding. The minimum amount that can be attributed under any of these circumstances is a gross monthly income figure of $1,052.
Line 2  Total Tax: Determine the amount of tax withheld in a month. Base withholding on Single tax status with one (1) exemption. Look up the amount of withholding on the withholding tables. Enter the amount for each parent for each of the separate taxes identified. Add these taxes across the line and enter the result in the appropriate column.
Line 3  Allowable Deductions:
Medical Insurance  Enter the cost of monthly medical insurance premiums paid by either parent, regardless of persons covered by the policy.
Other  Enter the monthly amount of any court ordered alimony payments to the other parent, and if not already deducted from gross income, allowable business expenses if the person is self-employed or required by his/her employer to purchase supplies etc. Add these deductions across the line and enter the result in the appropriate column. Enter the monthly amount of any involuntary deductions being withheld from the parent's paycheck.
Note: Deductions for payments on credit union debts or car payments are not allowed except to the extent that such debts are incurred for indispensable items in use by the dependents or necessary health care.
Line 4  Monthly Net Income: Calculate the Monthly Net Income by taking the Total Monthly Gross Income in Line 1 C and subtracting the amounts in Lines 2 and 3.
The Court has established an absolute minimum amount of income that a parent must retain to function at maximum productivity. Subtract each parent's self support *1013 allowance from their net income and calculate the net total income available to support the child(ren). Then, figure each parent's share of the total income.
Line 5  Parent's Self Support Allowance: Each parent's self support allowance equals $750. This amount has already been entered on the form.
Line 6  Net Income Available for Primary Support: Subtract the Parent's Self Support Allowance ($750) (Line 5) from each parent's Monthly Net Income (Line 4). Enter the result for each parent. Add the figures for Father and Mother to get the total available income. Enter the result in the total column.
Line 7  Share of Total Income Available: Divide the Net Income Available for Primary Support for each parent (Line 6) by the Total Net Income Available for Primary Support (Total Line 6). Enter the result for each parent.
The Court has established minimum levels of income needed to support one or more children. This primary support allowance is added to any work related child care expenses. Each parent's share of the child(ren)'s primary support need is based on each parents share of net income available.
Line 8  Number of Children Due Support in this Support Action: Enter the number of children due support in this support action under the parent's household where they live. Add the number in the Father's and Mother's column and enter the result in the Total column. Do not include children from other families. They are considered in another part of the support formula.
Line 9  Primary Support Allowance: Enter the Primary Support Allowance that matches the number of children in line 8 for each household (see table below for Primary Support Allowance). Add the number in each column and enter the result in the Total column.
Line 10
Line 11  Total Primary Need: To arrive at the Total Primary Need add the Primary Support Allowance, the Child Care Expenses, and Other (Lines 9 + 10A + 10B).
Line 12
When there is income available after the parents have met their own and any of their dependents primary support needs, the SOLA adjustment is made. SOLA is designed to give the child(ren) a share in each parent's economic well being similar to what the child(ren) would have received if the parents had remained together. See, e.g. Shuba v. DCSE/Reese, Del.Supr., 564 A.2d 1084 (1989); Flaherty v. Fidance, Del.Fam., No. B-2900, James J. (January 8, 1980); I.B. v. R.S.W.B., Del.Fam., No. A-3000 Melson, J. (November 10, 1977).
*1014 Line 13  Amount Available for SOLA: Subtract the Primary Support Obligation (Line 12) from the Net Income Available for Primary Support (Line 6) for each parent. Enter the result for each parent.
Line 14  SOLA Percentage: Enter the SOLA percentage, from the table above, which corresponds to the Number of children Due Support in this Support Action (Line 8 Total). If there are more than three children add 5 percent for each additional child up to 49 percent. The SOLA percentage shall not exceed 49 percent unless there is a prior finding of a specific need.
Line 15
The total monthly support amount is based on the primary support obligation of each parent plus the SOLA obligation. The amount of monthly child support owed depends on the custody arrangement for the child(ren) and the child support obligation of each parent. An adjustment is made if the parents equally share custody, residence and expenses of the child(ren) by agreement or by prior court order. A credit will be given for the support of other children to whom the obligor owes a duty of support. The credit will be calculated based on the percentages in the table below.
Note: There will be no adjustment to the calculation for "extraordinary" visitation schedules.
Line 16  Monthly Child Support Obligation: Add the Primary Support Obligation (Line 12) for each parent to the SOLA Amount (Line 15). Enter the result for each parent.
Line 17  Number of Dependent Children Not in This Action: Enter the number of qualified children of other unions to whom the obligor owes a duty of support. This credit is applicable to children in the obligor's home and children outside the obligor's home provided there is a court order for support or proof of a pattern of support.
Line 18  Credit for Support of Other Dependent Children: Enter credit on obligor's line. Calculate the credit by multiplying Monthly Child Support Obligation (Line 16) by the appropriate percentage from the table below.
Line 19  Amount Retained by Custodial Parent: Enter the Monthly Child Support Obligation (Line 16) where the parent is the custodian of the child(ren). Enter zero where the parent is not the custodian. Where there is a split custody arrangement (a child or children in each parent's home), enter the amount of support required for the child(ren) in each parent's household. The SOLA amount for each child is the per-child SOLA which is calculated in the Total column of Line 15.
Line 20  Total Monthly Child Support Amount Ordered: Subtract the Credit for Support of Other Dependents (Line 18) from the Monthly Child Support Obligation (Line 16). The minimum order allowed *1015 is $65/$117/$169/+ $39 per month for 1, 2, 3 and more children respectively.
Line 21  Pay Period Amount: If the support amount is to be paid at intervals other than monthly check that appropriate period and determine the amount owed for the period based on the monthly support obligation. If the period is weekly, multiply the monthly amount (Line 21) by 12 and then divide by 52. If the period is biweekly, multiply the monthly amount by 12 and then divide by 26. If the period is semi-monthly, divide the monthly amount by 2. All child support obligations will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount.
[1]  The normal Family Court contact schedule provides for the non-custodial or secondary residence parent to have visitation: every other weekend; five weeks in the summer; and to share or alternate holidays.
[2]  13 Del.C. § 514.
[3]  Child Support Enforcement Guidelines, 42 U.S.C. § 667 (1998). For a historical discussion of the federal mandates, see Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1197 (1989).
[4]  Pub.L. No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 2343.
[5]  Id.
[6]  The Melson Formula is named after its judicial craftsman, the Honorable Elwood F. Melson, Jr., of the Family Court of the State of Delaware. The formula was a judicial response to 13 Del.C. § 514 which required the Family Court to consider the economic conditions of the parties involved, their standard of living and the overall equities of the situation. For a discussion of the Melson Formula, see Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr. 559 A.2d 1197, 1202-09 (1989).
[7]  Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d  at 1203, citing The Delaware Child Support Formula; Study and Evaluation, Report to the 132nd General Assembly, Family Court of the State of Delaware, at 1-2 (April 15, 1985).
[8]  Id. at 1209.
[9]  Id.
[10]  Fam.Ct.Civ.R. 52(c).
[11]  Form 509 (Appendix I) (Child Support Calculation) and Form 509-1 (Appendix II) (Instructions for Child Support Calculation).
[12]  Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d  at 1211.
[13]  Id. (citation omitted).
[14]  Id. at 1210-11. The official forms cited were those that were being used by the Family Court when Dalton was decided.
[15]  Delaware Child Support Formula Committee, The Delaware Child Support Formula  Evaluation and Update, 4 (1990). See Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1197, 1207-09 (1989) (discussing some of Dr. Williams' national work on matters relating to child support guidelines and his analysis of the Melson Formula).
[16]  Delaware Child Support Formula Committee, The Delaware Child Support Formula  Evaluation and Update (1990).
[17]  Price v. Howard, Del.Fam., CN 91-6199, James, J. (April 16, 1996). See Ogard v. Ogard, Alaska Supr., 808 P.2d 815 (1991). See also Erickson v. Erickson, N.M.App., 978 P.2d 347 (1999).
[18]  Robert G. Williams, Ph.D., Analysis of the Delaware Child Support Formula, 9-10 (July 15, 1989).
[19]  Delaware Child Support Formula Committee, The Delaware Child Support Formula  Evaluation and Update (1990).
[20]  Delaware Child Support Formula Committee, The Delaware Child Support Formula  Evaluation and Update, 11 (1994).
[21]  Form 509-1 (Appendix II) (Instructions for Child Support Calculation) (emphasis added).
[22]  Marygold S. Melli & Patricia R. Brown, The Economics of Shared Custody: Developing an Equitable Formula for Dual Residence, 31 Hous.L.Rev. 543, 546-47 (1994). See American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations § 3.14, Determining The Amount of A Child Support Award In Dual Residence Cases (Tentative Draft No. 3, Part II, 4/8/98). See also Laura W. Morgan, Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Application 21 3.03[a], at 3-25 to 3-26 (1997 Supp.). See generally K. Getman, Changing Formulas for Changing Families: Shared Custody Must Not Shortchange Children, 10 Family Advocate 47 (Spring 1988).
[23]  Dalton v. Clanton, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1197, 1211 (1989) (citations omitted).
[24]  13 Del.C. § 514(3).
[25]  Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d  at 1201-02, 1212.
[26]  Id. at 1210-11.
[27]  Delaware Child Support Formula Committee, the Delaware Child Support Formula  Evaluation and Update, 9 (1998)
[28]  Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d  at 1212.
[29]  See Price v. Howard, Del.Fam., CN 91-6199, James, J. (April 16, 1996). Compare Trotto-Milloway v. Milloway, Del.Fam., No. CN96-08063, 1997 WL 878697 Crowell, J. (July 25, 1997).
[30]  Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d  at 1212.
[31]  Lee v. Green, Del.Supr., 574 A.2d 857 (1990).