1 rr> miU 

# '&V&TM*

_;ATE 0 

### M 9'- 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Marriage of SARA STEPHENSON, Appellant, and SHATA STEPHENSON, Respondent. No. 68507-4-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: April 1,2013 Verellen, J. — Sara Stephenson appeals the trial court's order of child support, 

### arguing the court did notfollow the statutory scheme inchapter 26.19 RCW. Where parents have a 50/50 shared residential schedule, the trial court is required to make the standard child support calculation and then consider any requested deviation, expressly 

### analyzing whether a downward residential deviation would leave the household receiving the reduced paymentwith insufficient funds to meetthe needs ofthe children. The trial court consulted the child support economic table as required by the statute, 

### and then reduced the transfer paymentfrom Shata to Sara to accountfor Shata's equal residential time. But the court recited that itwas not applying the standard calculation, 

### and that the reduced transfer payment did not constitute a deviation. There is no indication that the trial court considered whether the reduced transfer amount would leave Sara's household with insufficient funds to meet the needs ofthe children.No. 68507-4-1/2
Because the trial courtfailed to conduct the appropriate analysis under RCW 26.19.075(1 )(d), we vacate the order of child support and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.FACTS Sara and Shata Stephenson divorced after nine years of marriage. Theirtwo children were eight and ten years old at the time of trial. The parties agreed to a shared residential schedule, with the children spending equal amounts oftime in each parent's household. Because ofthe shared residential schedule, Shata argued the basic support 

### obligation should be shared between the parties, withthe monthly transfer amount set
so that each party paid half ofthe basic support obligation. Because he and Sara have 

### equivalent residential burdens, Shata contended itwas "notpossible to identify an 

### obligororobligeefor child supportpurposes."1 Saraargued that thecourt should not deviate from the basic support obligation, as it would leave herwith insufficient funds to
meet the basic needs ofthe two children. 

### Forpurposes of the child supporttransfer payment, the court imputed income of $38,388 to Sara and income of $123,895 to Shata. Based on the child support schedule in RCW 26.19.020, the court determined the basic child support obligation


### was $1,866.00 ($933.00 for each ofthe two children). Based on the parties' income, the court determined Shata's proportional share ofthe child support obligation was 75 

### percent, for a total of $1,399.50, and Sara's 25 percent, for a total of $466.50.



### 1Clerk's Papers at 40.No. 68507^-1/3 

### The court identified Shata as the obligor on the monthly child supporttransfer payments. Instead of ordering a monthlytransfer payment by Shata to Sara of $933 (i.e., the standard calculation, which is the difference between his proportional share and Sara's proportional share), the court determined Shata owed a total monthly transfer payment of$500. The court explicitly stated its orderwas not a deviation from the standard calculation. Rather, the court concluded the standard calculation did not 

### apply, so "the court's equal allocation of the [b]asic [s]upport [obligation between the two households does not constitute a deviation."2 The court did not enterwritten findings or conclusions. There is no indication inthe record thatthe trial court 

### considered the impact ofthe reduced transfer payment on Sara's ability to meet the needs ofthe two children. 

### Sara appeals the trial court's order of childsupport, contending the court's analysis amounted to an improper deviation from the standard support calculation. DISCUSSION We review a trial court's decision on an order of child supportfor an abuse of 

### discretion.3 A trial court abuses its discretion if itthe decision rests on unreasonable or 

### untenable grounds.4 Atrial court necessarily abuses its discretion ifits ruling is based on an erroneous view ofthe law orinvolves application of an incorrect legal analysis.5



### 2Clerk's Papers at 77. 3State exrel. M.M.G. v. Graham. 159Wn.2d 623,632, 152P.3d 1005 (2007). 4]o\at 633. 

### 5Dixv. ICT Group. Inc.. 160Wn.2d 826, 833, 161 P.3d 1016(2007).No. 68507-4-1/4

Deviation from the Standard Calculation Chapter 26.19 RCW directs a specific process a trial court must follow before entering an order of child support. The court mustfirst apply the child support 

### schedule.6 Thecourt begins by setting thebasic child supportobligation, which isthe "monthly child support obligation determined from the economic table based on the parties' combined monthly net income and the number of children for whom support is 

### owed."7 Theeconomictable ispresumptivefor combined monthly incomes of$12,000
or less.8 The court must allocate the child support obligation between the parents based 

### on eachparent's share ofthecombined monthly income.9 Thecourtthen determines the "standard calculation," which is the presumptive amount of child support owed by the obligor parentto the obligee parent under the child support schedule, before 

### consideration ofeither an upward ordownward deviation.10 The court next determines whether it is appropriate to deviate from the standard 

### calculation.11 Thetrial courtmayexercise itsdiscretion anddeviate from the standard 

### calculation based on a variety offactors, including thechildren's residential schedule.12
6RCW 26.19.035(1 )(c) ("The child support scheduleshall beapplied
.... [i]n al proceedings in which child support is determined."). 

### 7RCW 26.19.011(1); see also RCW 26.19.020(child supporteconomic table); Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 627. 

### 8RCW26.19.020, .065. 

### 9RCW 26.19.080(1). 10 RCW 26.19.011(8); Graham. 159Wn.2d at 627. 11 RCW 26.19.011(4), (8); Graham, 159 Wn.2d at 627. 

### 12 RCW 26.19.075(d).No. 68507-4-1/5
Ifthe court considers a deviation based on the residential schedule, it must follow
a specific statutory analysis that takes into account whether and how a deviation will affect both the parent receiving the support transfer payments and the parent making the supporttransfer payment. The statute allowing for deviation provides: Residential schedule. The court may deviate from the standard calculation ifthe child spends a significant amount oftime with 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 insufficient funds in the household receiving the support to meet the basic needs ofthe child or if the child is receiving temporary assistance for needy families. When determining the amount ofthe deviation, the court shall consider evidence concerning the increased expenses to a parent making support transfer payments resulting from the significant amount oftime spent with that parent and shall considerthe decreased expenses, ifany, to the party receiving the support resulting from the significant amount oftime the child 

### spendswith the parentmaking thesupporttransferpayment.1133 This same process applies to a 50/50 shared residential schedule. In Graham.
our Supreme Court explained, "[T]he plain text of RCW 26.19.075 gives the trial court discretion to deviate from the basic child support obligation based on a variety of factors, one ofwhich is the amount of residential time the children spend with the 

### parents."14 Itfurther held that, because ofthe abilitytodeviate based on the facts ofa particular case, "a specific formula is neither necessary nor statutorily required to 

### ensuretheparents' child supportobligation is properly allocated."15 This court held that, in a 50/50 shared residential context, "a trial court must calculate the basic child support 

### amount and may then deviate fromthat amount based on the amount of residential time spentwiththe obligor parent, pursuant to RCW 26.19.075, so long as doing so will not 

### 13Id 14 Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 636. 15 Id.No. 68507^-1/6
result in insufficientfunds inthe household receiving the support to meetthe needs of 

### thechildren whilethey are residing in thathousehold".16 The SupremeCourtaffirmed.17 Sara contends the trial court erred when it awarded her less than the standard 

### child support calculation. She contends the courtfailed to engage inthe required deviation analysis, resulting in a child support orderthat left her with insufficientfunds to meetthe needs of her children. We agree. 

### The trial court properly determined the standard support obligation as $1,866.00, 

### or $933.00 per child, and allocated 75 percentof the support obligation ($1,399.50) to Shata, and the remaining 25 percent to Sara ($466.50). Even though the court correctly identified the standard support obligation, the court concluded the standard calculation did not apply inthis case, "because there is no primary residential parent who is entitled 

### tosupportbasedupon the [standard [calculation."18 While the statuteexplicitly allows the court to deviate from the standard calculation based on residential time spentwith the obligor parent, the court "may not deviate on that basis ifthe deviation willresult in insufficient funds inthe household receiving the supportto meet the basic needs ofthe child."19 Instead ofengaging inthe required statutory analysis to determine the propriety of a downward residential deviation, the trial court simply ordered Shata to pay Sara



### 16 State exrel. M.M.G. v. Graham. 123Wn. App. 931, 941, 99 P.3d 1248 (2004), aff'd. 159Wn.2dat636. 17 Graham. 159 Wn.2d at 636. 18 Clerk's Papers at 77. 

### 19 RCW 26.19.075(d).No. 68507-4-1/7 $500 per month. The court stated the $500 transfer payment did not constitute a deviation, because ofthe equal residential care each parent provided: The [standard [calculation does not apply to this case[ ] because the parties have a 50/50 shared residential schedule where each parent provides an equal amount of residential care for the children. Therefore, the court's equal allocation ofthe [b]asic [s]upport [obligation between the two households does not constitute a deviation.[20] There is no indication in the record on appeal that the trial court gave any consideration to whether the reduction intransfer payment resulted in insufficientfunds to meet the children's needs. The trial court erred in concluding the standard calculation did not apply to a shared residential schedule. The trial court also failed to consider whether its support order, which amounted to a downward deviation, would leave Sara's household with insufficientfunds. The court's failure to apply the standard calculation, as well as its 

### failure toconducttheanalysis required underRCW26.19.075(d),21 amounted to a misapprehension ofthe law.22

20 Clerk's Papers at 77. 21 We need notaddress Sara's additional argument that the court also erred by failing to justifywith written findings what amounted to a downward deviationfrom the standard support calculation as required by RCW26.19.075(3). On remand, the trial court will give due consideration to any requirements of RCW26.19.075(3). 

### 22We recognized in Graham that the shared residential arrangementrequires the parents to each provide a household to not just one, but to two or more children. 

### Dividing the basic child support by the number of children and splitting it between the parents would qualitativelyreduce the amount of funds available to the children in the household that is less financially well off. Graham. 123 Wn. App. at 941. "This would often result in not meeting the legislature's intent to satisfy the basic needs ofthe 

### children and to provide additional financial support commensurate with the parents' income, resources and standard ofliving." Ja\ at 940 (citing RCW 26.19.001).No. 68507^-1/8
Shata responds the trial court did not err, as chapter 26.19 RCW is silent regarding the process for determining child support where each parent has the children 

### exactly halfthe time. As noted above, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument inGraham, where the obligor parent shared the residential schedule equally withthe 

### obligee parent.23 Accepting Shata's argument would require us to ignore the holding ofGraham,
as well as the clear statutory language requiring courts to follow the same process for all determinations of child support. To the extent Shata advocates for equitable relief 

### from the statute, he cites no persuasive legal authority to support his argument. We vacate the order of child support and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. During oral argument, Sara argued that Shata should be precluded from pursuing a deviation on remand. Shata conceded that he had not sought a deviation at trial, although Sara had advanced the argument that he was required to request a downward deviation. The parties have not briefed the scope of the remedy available after vacation of an order of child support. The trial court on remand will be inthe best position to consider any arguments on this issue.



### 23159Wn.2d at 628. In Graham, theobligorparent asked thecourtto reducehis support obligation to accountfor his shared residential burden, and urged the courtto follow the Arvev formula in the absence of specific direction from the legislature regarding shared residential schedules. ]d at 633-36 (citing In re Marriage of Arvev, 77 Wn. App. 817, 825-26, 894 P.2d 1346 (1995)). The Arvev formula takes each parent's support obligation and divides it in half to account for a split residence schedule (i.e., where each parent has fullresidential time with only one ofthe two children, ratherthan 

### split residential time with both children). Jd. at 626, 633-36; Arvev. 77 Wn. App. at 825- 26.

8No. 68507-4-1/9 Attorney Fees Sara requests attorney fees under RAP 18.1(a) and RCW 26.09.140. Sara 

### argues her disparate earning capacity entitles herto attorney fees. To support her argument, she points to Shata's maintenance obligation, as well as to the fact that she 

### has not had time to get her real estate business offthe ground. Sara submitted a financial affidavit to support her request, as required under RAP 18.1(c). Her declaration documents her need and inability to pay, and therefore, we grant Sara's request for attorney fees on appeal, upon her timely compliance with RAP 18.1 (d).

WE CONCUR: 

# 6*,j. %-ofceie,