IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Inthe Matter ofthe Marriage of SCOTT JAMES MCGOWAN, Appellant, and YELENA MCGOWAN, Respondent. No. 72427-4-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: November 23, 2015 Trickey, J. — Scott McGowan appeals the trial court's order of child support following the dissolution of his marriage to Yelena McGowan. Because Scottfails to demonstrate any reversible erroror abuse ofdiscretion, we affirm. FACTS Scott and Yelena1 married in July 1998 and separated on July 11, 2013. They have two sons, born inAugust 2000 and April 2005. In August 2013, the trial court entered a temporary order providing for the children to reside with Scott

a majority of the time and spend every other weekend with Yelena. The court also imputed income to Yelena and ordered herto pay child support to Scott. In November 2013, a family court commissioner ordered Scott to pay monthly spousal maintenance in an amount to be reduced based on increases in Yelena's gross earnings. Before trial, the parties agreed to a parenting plan with
an equally shared residential schedule. The remaining issues for trial included child support and the division ofmarital assets and debts.

1We refer to the parties by their firstnames, no disrespect is intended.No. 72427-4-1 / 2 On June 11, 2014, the first day of trial, the trial court signed the agreed 

### parenting plan. At trial, both Scott and Yelena offered testimony and documentary evidence to establish their respective incomes and expenses in 

### their separate households. Yelena also testified that she expected her monthly expenses to increase significantly under the new permanent parenting plan. She intended to move to an apartment with a separate bedroom for the boys and in a location close to one of their schools. Yelena testified to her estimation of increased expenses in rent, food, transportation, and othercosts. 

### Ultimately, the parties stipulated to their respective gross monthly income 

### figures of $9,823.23 for Scott and $6,000.00 for Yelena. During closing 

### arguments, the parties clarified that they also stipulated to the monthly net 

### income figures listed in Scott's proposed child support worksheet. Scott asked the court for a deviation from the standard calculation of child support based on the shared residential schedule under RCW 26.19.075(1 )(d). 

### Based on the income figuresin the worksheet as stipulated by the parties, the trial court determined the standard calculation for both children to be 

### $1,533.82 from Scott and $1,071.18 from Yelena. The trial court determined Scott to be the obligor parent and orderedhim to pay Yelena a monthly transfer 

### paymentof$1,533.82. Thecourtdenied Scott's requestfor a deviation from the standard calculation, stating the following reason: "A deviation would result in 

### insufficient funds to support the basic needs of the children in the recipient household."2

2Clerk's Papers (CP) at 884.No. 72427-4-1 / 3 Scott appeals.3 ANALYSIS We review child support orders, including rulings on requests for deviation from the standard calculation, for abuse ofdiscretion. Inre Marriage of Bell, 101 

### Wn. App. 366, 370-72, 4 P.3d 849 (2000). Atrial court abuses its discretion by 

### basing its decision on unreasonable or untenable grounds or by applying an erroneous view of the law or incorrect legal analysis. In re Marriage of 

### Schnurman, 178 Wn. App. 634, 638, 316 P.3d 514 (2013). "This court will not 

### substitute itsownjudgmentforthat of thetrial court where the record shows that the trial court considered all relevant factors and the award is not unreasonable under the circumstances." In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657, 664, 50 P.3d 298 (2002). 

### RCW 26.19.075(1)(d) permits trial courts to deviate from the standard statutorily-imposed childsupport schedules: 

### Residential schedule. The court may deviate from the standard 

### calculationifthe child spends a significant amount of timewith the 

### parent who is obligated to make a support transfer payment. The 

### court may not deviate on that basis if the deviation will result in insufficientfunds in the household receiving the supportto meetthe basic needs of the child or if the child is receiving temporary 

### assistance for needy families. When determining the amount of the deviation, the court shall consider evidence concerning the 

### increased expenses to a parent making support transfer payments resulting from the significant amount of time spent with that parent and shall consider the decreased expenses, if any, to the party 

### receiving the support resulting from the significant amount of time
3Acommissionerof this court referred to the panel Yelena's motion to strike and request forsanctions based on certain factual assertions in an appendix to Scott's opening brief. 

### The panel has theabilitytoreviewtherecord designated onappeal and todeterminethe facts relevant to a fair resolution of the issues presented. Accordingly, we need not decide Yelena's motion to strike and we deny her requestfor sanctions.No. 72427-4-1/4 the child spends with the parent making the support transfer payment. This deviation is discretionary, however, and deviation from the standard child 

### support schedules "remains the exception to the rule," to "be used only where it would be inequitable not to do so." Inre Marriage of Burch, 81 Wn. App. 756, 

### 760, 916 P.2d 443 (1996); see also, Schnurman, 178 Wn.App. at 641 (deviation under RCW26.19.075(1)(d) could be warranted when children share residential 

### timeequally between parents, but"would still be discretionary and should focus on the legislature's primary intenttomaintain reasonable supportfor the children in each household"). "Unless specific reasons for deviation are set forth in the 

### written findings offact and are supported by the evidence, the court shall order each parent to pay the amount ofsupport determined by using the standard calculation." RCW 26.19.075(2). 

### Scottfirst assigns errorto the statementin thechild supportorder that"the 

### support obligation is based upon" Yelena's monthly net income of$4,173.99, 

### when the parties stipulated to a monthly net income of$4,928.89.4 He claims that the trial court erred "[t]o the extent [it] relied on thiserroneous incomefigure to conclude that a deviation would result in insufficient funds in the mother's household."5 

### But Scott concedes that the trial court properly listedYelena's monthly net income as $4,928.89 on the worksheet, which was attached and incorporated by 

### reference to the support order, and used $4,928.89 as her net income for

4CP at 882-83, 892. 5Br. ofAppellant at 9.No. 72427-4-1 / 5
purposes of determining the standard child support calculation. We also note that the child support order lists Scott's monthly net income as $7,039.25, while the worksheet lists his monthly net income as $7,522.46. Similarly, the support order lists the standard calculation as $1,558.07 with a reference to "Worksheet line 17," which in turn lists the standard calculation as $1,533.82, consistentwith the trial court's handwritten and initialed statement ofthe transfer payment on the 

### order.6 The parties do not dispute that the trial court used the income numbers listed in the worksheet to determine the standard calculation of $1,533.82 as listed inthe worksheet, ratherthan $1,558.07 as listed inthe order. Because the trial court's handwritten statement of the transfer payment is 

### consistent, as Scott concedes, with the standard calculation resulting from the 

### higher monthly netincomes as listed on theworksheet, itappearsthattheorder ofchild support contains scrivener's errors in its statements as to Yelena's monthly netincome, Scott's monthly netincome, and the standard calculation. Scott does not seek remand for correction of these errors. And contrary to 

### Scott's claim, it is also clear that the discrepancy in the numbers listed in the orderdoes not implicate the court's decision regarding deviation. 

### According to RCW 26.19.075(1)(d), the court "may notdeviate" based on the residential schedule "ifthe deviation will result in insufficient funds in the 

### household receiving the support to meet the basic needs of the child." Scott 

### challenges the trial court's finding here that "[a] deviation would result in insufficient funds to support the basic needs of the children in the recipient

6CP at 883, 894.No. 72427-4-1 / 6

household."7 But Scott concedes that Yelena testified at trial to an estimated increase of $1,635.00 in monthly expenses based on her increased residential time with the children under the new parenting plan, for a total of $5,578.00 in 

### monthlyexpenses. The trial court was entitled to rely on her testimony, and we do not weigh the evidence or credibility ofwitnesses. In re Marriage ofRich, 80 Wn. App. 252, 259, 907 P.2d 1234 (1996). Because, as Scott concedes, Yelena's expected monthly expenses of $5,578.00 exceeds her monthly net income of $4,928.89, the trial court did not err in denying his request for a deviation under RCW 26.19.075(1 )(d) forthe reason stated. 

### In essence, Scottargues that RCW 26.19.075(1 )(d) required the trial court 

### to compare the impact of a deviation in some particular amount on the total financial circumstances ofeach household. We disagree. RCW 26.19.075(1)(d) 

### expressly provides that the trial court is to consider evidence concerning increased expenses to the obligor parent and other such factors "[w]hen 

### determiningthe amountofthedeviation" afterfirstdetermining whetherdeviation from the standard calculation is appropriate, not when determining whether to 

### deviate in the first instance, which is what Scott seeks here.8 Cf. State ex rel. 

### J.V.G.v. VanGuilder. 137Wn. App. 417, 424, 154 P.3d 243 (2007) (underRCW 

### 26.19.075(1)(e), when parentseeks deviation based on support ofchildren from another relationship, court must consider "total circumstances of both households" in deciding "whethera deviation is appropriate").

7 CP at 884. 8(Emphasis added.)

6No. 72427-4-1/7

Given Scott's resources and his reduced residential time with the children under the new parenting plan compared with Yelena's increasing expenses 

### under the new parenting plan, the trial court's decision to deny Scott's requestfor a deviation from the standard statutory calculation was not "inequitable." See Burch, 81 Wn. App. at760. Scott also contends that the trial court erred by allocating to him 62 

### percent of health care and special child rearing expenses, rather than 60.4 

### percent as indicated on the child support worksheet and required by RCW 26.19.080(2) and (3). He further contends the trial court failed to properly 

### apportion his support obligation between the two children. Because he fails to contend or demonstrate that he raised these issues in the trial court, we decline 

### to consider them for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a); see In re Marriage of Wallace. 111 Wn. App. 697, 705, 45 P.3d 1131 (2002). 

### Yelena requests an award ofattorneyfees based on her need and Scott's 

### ability to pay, as well as the arguable lack ofmerit in his appeal. See RCW 26.09.140; In re Marriage of Leslie. 90 Wn. App. 796, 807, 954 P.2d 330 (1998). Exercising our discretion, we deny Yelena's request. Affirmed. s= 

# \r\^ko^ j-) c *
WE CONGO CO