In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : No v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 4

S1 4F 1 7 1 1 . F LADGER v

. F L ADGER.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Ke lly Fla d ge r (F a th e r) a n d a p p e lle e Mo n ic a F la d g e r (Mo th e r)

we re m a rrie d in S e p te m

b e r 1 9 9 4

. Th e ir m a rria g e p ro d uc e d two c hild re n

, wh o

w e r e a g e s te n a n d six w h e n Mo th e r file d fo r d iv o rc e in 2 0 1 1

. A fte r a b e n c h

tria l, th e tria l c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r o f d iv o rc e o n De c e m b e r 13

, 2 0 1 2

, a n d th e n

a m e n d e d th e o rd e r o n De c e m b e r 5 , 2 0 1 3 . In th is disc re tio n a ry a p p e a l g ra n te d

u n d e r OC G A § 5 -6 -3 5 a nd th is Co u rt’s Ru le 3 4 (4 ), F a th e r c h a lle n g e s th e

a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt h e ha s b e e n o rd e re d to p a y

, w h ic h w a s c a lc u la te d in

p a rt u sin g a h ig h-in c o m e d e v ia tio n

. We re v e rse th a t p o rtio n of th e d iv o rc e o rd e r

a n d re m a n d fo r th e tria l c ou rt to m a k e a ll of th e writte n fin din g s th a t th e c h ild

su p p o rt sta tu te re q u ire s b e fo re su c h a d e v ia tio n m a y b e a

p p lie d

.

1

. Th e De c e m

b e r 1 3

, 2 0 1 2 d iv o rc e ord e r m a d e M o t h e r th e c u sto d ia l

p a re n t a n d sa id th e fo llo win g re g a rd in g c h ild su p p o rt:Th e Mo th e r e a rn s $ 5 ,0 9 7 .3 5 m o n th lya s a te a c he r in th e Gwin n e tt

Co u nty P u b lic S c h o o ls. Th e Fa th e r’s 2 0 1 1 in c o m e wa s

$ 6 3 9 ,5 7 3 .3 8

. H e e a rn e d a p p ro x im a te ly $ 6 7 4

, 0 0 0 in 2 0 1 0

. Th e

F a th e r sh a ll p a y c h ild su p p o rt in th e a m o u n t o f $ 5 ,0 5 2 .0 0 m o n th ly

,

to c om m e n c e o n Ja nu a ry 1 , 2 0 1 3

. . . .

Th e c h ild su pp o rt wo rk sh e e t file d w ith th e o rd e r sh o we d th a t, b a se d o n Fa th e r’s

m o n th ly g ro s s a n d a d

j u s te d in c o m e o f $ 5 4 ,1 6 6

, h e h a d a 9 1 .4 % sh are o f th e

p a rtie s’ to ta l a d

ju ste d in c o m e

. 1 F a th e r’s p re su m ptiv e c hild su p p o rt a m o u n t wa s

$ 3 ,0 5 1 .8 3

. Th is a m o u n t re p re se n ts $ 2 ,8 0 2 .3 2

, o r 91 .4 % o f $ 3,0 6 6

, th e

m a x im um b a sic c h ild su p p o rt a m o u n t fo r two c h ild re n se t b y OCGA § 1 9 -6 -1 5

(o ), p lu s a

n u p wa rd a d

ju stm e n t o f $ 4 1 6 .1 8 an d a d o wn wa rd a d ju stm e n t o f

$ 1 6 6.6 7 fo r e x p e n se s th a t a re n o t a t issu e h e re

. Th e tria l c ou rt th e n a p p lie d a

$ 2 ,0 0 0 u p wa rd d e v ia tio n ba se d on Fa th e r’s hig h in c o m e

. 2 Th e sp a c e s p ro v id e d

1 On appeal, F a ther does not challeng e the trial court’s finding s a s to his g ross income. At

trial, the par t i e s disputed F ather’s income based larg ely o n how to treat his stock options. F ather

presented testimony and pay stubs indicating that h is salary as an ex ecutive, plus bonuses, g ave him

a monthly g ross income of about $28,000, or about $336,000 annually

. Mother, however, presented

tax documents showing that F ather’s company also g ave h im reg ular g rants of stock o ptions, which

made his g ross annual income 6 74,603.52 in 2010, $762,516.59 in 2011, and $857,530.09 in 2012.

She also submitted F ather’s W -2 f or m f o r 2 0 1 1

, which showed that he received $639,573.38 in

compensation.

2 The schedule of basic child support oblig ations in § 19-6-15 (o) lists the basic child support

oblig ations for parents with a combined adjusted income o f up to $30,000 per month ($360,000 per

y ear). OCGA § 19-6-15 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( A ) s ay s that when the combined a djusted income of the parents

ex c eeds $30,000 per month,

the court shall set the basic child support oblig a tion at the hig hest amount a l l o w ed

2o n th e wo rk sh e e t fo r th e fa c tu a l fin d in g s n e c e ssa ry to su p p o rt a d e v ia tio n

,

h o we v e r, we re le ft b la n k

. 3 Th e d iv o rc e o rd e r re se rv e d th e issu e o f a tto rn e y fe e s,

so it wa s n o t y e t a

fin a l ju d g m e n t.

On A p ril 1 0

, 2 0 1 3

, F a th e r f i l e d a m o tio n to a m e n d th e d iv o rc e o rd e r,

a lle g in g

, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t th e h ig h -in c o m e d e v ia tio n wa s n o t su p p o rte d

b y th e e v id e nc e a

n d th a t th e tria l c o u rt fa ile d to m a k e th e fin d in g s re q u ire d to

su p p o rt th e d e v ia tio n. On Ju ly 1 0

, 2 0 1 3

, th e c o u rt d e n ie d th e m otio n to a m e n d

o n th e g ro un d th a t it wa s file d o utsid e th e te rm o f c o u rt in wh ic h th e o rd e r wa s

r e n d e re d, wh ic h e x p ire d a t th e e nd o f De c e m be r 2 0 1 2

. On Ju ly 1 1

, 2 01 3

, t h e

c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g a tto r n ey f e e s to Mo th e r. F a th e r th e n file d a

tim e ly m o tio n fo r n e w tria l a n d a m otio n u n d e r OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ) to se t a sid e

th e div o rc e o rd e r a s we ll a s th e o rd e r d e ny in g h is m otio n to a m e n d th e d iv orc e

by the child support oblig ation table but the court or the jury may consider upward

d e viation to a ttain an appropriate award of child support f or hig h-income pare n t s

which is consistent with the best interest of the child.

3 The worksheet say s, “ No Deviations are permitted u nder the law unless all three questions

below

. . . have been answered.” The questions that follow are: “W ould the presumptive amount be

unjust or inappropriate? Ex plain.”; “W o uld deviation serve the best interes t s of the children f or

whom support is being determined? Ex plain.”; “W ould deviation seriously impair the a bility of the

CUSTODI AL Parent or NONPARENT Custodian to mai n t a in minimally a dequate housing

, food

and clothing for the children being su p p o r ted by the order a nd to p rovide other basic necessities?

Ex plain.”

3o rd e r, re p e a tin g , a m o n g o th e r th in g s, h is c la im th a t th e h ig h-in c om e d e v ia tio n

wa s n o t su p p o rte d b y th e e v id e n c e o r th e re q uire d fin din g s

. O n O c t o b e r 4

,

2 0 1 3, a fte r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a rin g fo r wh ic h th e re is n o tra n sc rip t in th e re c o rd

,

th e tria l c o u rt d e n ie d Fa th e r’s m o tio n s a s to a ll c la im s e xc e p t h is c h ild su p p ort

c la im , o n wh ic h th e c o u rt d e fe rre d ru lin g

. 4

On De c e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 1 3

, th e tria l c ou rt a m e n d e d th e De c e m b e r 2 01 2 d iv orc e

o rd e r to a d d th e fo llo win g :

Th e Co urt fin d s a s a m a tte r of fa c t t h a t [F a th e r] e a rn e d

a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 7 4

, 0 0 0

. 0 0 in 2 0 1 0 a nd a p pro x i m at e l y $ 6 3 9

, 5 7 3

. 0 0

in 2 01 1

. Th u s, [F a th e r’s] a v e ra g e m o nth ly in c o m e fo r th o se y e a rs

wa s a p p ro xim a te ly $ 5 4 ,7 3 2

. 0 0

. Th e M o th e r e a rn s a p p ro x im a te ly

$ 5 ,0 9 7 .0 0 a s a p u b lic sc h o o l te a c he r in th e Gwin n e tt Co u n ty P u b lic

S c h o o ls. T h e Co urt th e re b y fin d s a s a m a tte r o f fa c t th a t a h i g h

in c o m e d e v ia tio n is wa rra n te d b o th b y th e re sp on de n t’s h ig h

in c o m e a nd b y th e d isp a rity in th e p artie s’ i n c o me s. T h e Co u rt

fin d s th a t, p u rsu a nt to O.C.G.A. S e c

. 1 9 -6 -1 5

, th e a m o u nt o f th e

p re su m p tiv e a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt wo u l d b e in a p pro p ria te a n d

th a t th e b e st in te re st o f th e c h ild re n will b e se rv e d by de v ia tio n d u e

to th e re sp o n d e nt’s h ig h in c o m e

, sa id d e via tio n b e in g th e $ 2 ,0 0 0.0 0

th a t th e Co u rt a sse sse d o v e r a n d a b o v e th e $ 3,0 5 1 .8 3

.

F a th e r file d a tim e ly d isc re tio na ry a pp lic a tio n se e k in g to a

p pe a l th e n o w4 On November 4, 2013, F a ther filed a discretionary application to appeal the divorce order,

which this Court dismissed on November 19, 2013, on the g round that the d ivorce order was not a

final judg ment because the trial c o u rt had deferred r uling on the child support issue and F ather had

not followed the procedures required for an interlocutory appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).

4fin a l ju d g m e n t o f div o rc e

, a nd in p a rtic u la r th e D e c e m be r 2 0 1 3 a m e n d m e n t. We

g ra n te d th e a

p p lic a tio n a n d d ire c te d th e p artie s to a d dre ss wh e th e r th e tria l c o urt

e rre d b y fa ilin g to m a k e su ffic ie n t fin d in g s in su pp o rt o f its d e v ia tio n fro m th e

p re su m p tiv e a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt u n de r OCGA § 1 9 -6 -1 5 (c ) (2 ) (E) a n d (i).

2

. OCGA § 1 9 -6 -1 5 (c ) (2 ) (E) sa y s th a t if th e tria l c o u rt d e te rm in e s

th a t a d e v ia tio n f

r om th e p re su m

p tiv e c h ild su p p ort a m o un t is a p p lic a b le

, th e

c o u rt sh a ll in c lu d e in th e fin a l d iv o rc e ju d g m e n t “ writte n fin din g s o f fa c t” th a t

m u st se t fo rth :

(i) Th e re a so n s th e c o u rt

. . . d e v ia te d fro m th e p re su m p tiv e a m o u n t

o f c h ild su p p o rt;

(ii) Th e a m ou nt o f c h ild su p p o rt th a t wo u ld h a v e b e e n re q u ire d

u n d e r th is Co de se c tio n if th e pre su m p tiv e a m o un t of c h ild su p p o rt

h a d n o t b e e n re b u tte d ; a n d

(iii) A fin d in g th a t sta te s h o w th e c o u rt’s

. . . a p p lic a tio n o f th e c hild

su p p o rt g u id e lin e s wo u ld b e u n ju st or in a p p ro pria te c o n sid e rin g th e

re la tiv e a b ility o f e a c h p a re nt to p ro v id e su p po rt an d h ow th e b e st

in te re st o f th e c h i l d wh o is su b je c t to th e c h ild su p p o rt

d e te rm in a tio n is se rv e d b y d e v ia tio n fro m th e pre su m p tiv e a m o u n t

o f c h ild su p p o rt . . . . 5

5 OCGA § 19-6-15 (i) (1) (B ) similarly provides:

W h en ordering a d eviation from the presu m p t i v e a mount of child support, the

court

. . . shall consider a ll availab l e i n co m e of the parents and shall make written

finding s

. . . that an amount of child suppo r t o t her than the a mount calculated is

reasonably necessary to provide for the needs of the child for whom child support is

being determined and the order . . . shall state:

( i ) T h e reasons f

or the deviation from the p resumptive amount of child

5Th e fin a l d iv o rc e ju d g m e n t i n th is c a se

, wh ic h in c lu d e s th e o rig in a l

d iv o rc e ord e r, its a m e n d m e n t, a n d th e a sso c ia te d c h ild su p p o rt wo rk sh e e t, m e e ts

th e first two o f th e se th re e re q u i r e m e nts. Th e a m e n d e d o rd e r sta te s “ [t] h e

re a so ns th e c o u r t

. . . d e v ia te d fro m th e pre su m p tiv e a m ou nt o f c h ild su p p o rt”

b y m a k in g fin d in g s a s to Fa th e r’s a n d Mo th e r’s in c o m e s – wh ic h sh o w th a t th e ir

c o m b in e d g ro ss in c o m e w a s n e a rly d o u b le th e $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 p e r m o n th m a x im u m

a c c o u nte d fo r in th e sta tu to ry sc h e d u le a n d th a t F a th e r’s in c o m e is m ore th a n te n

tim e s wh a t M o th e r ea r n s

– a n d e x p la in in g th a t “ a h ig h in c o m e de v ia tio n is

wa rra n te d b o th b y [F a th e r’s] h ig h in c o m e a nd b y th e d i s p a r i ty in th e p a rtie s’

in c o m e s.” An d th e wo rk sh e e t lists “[t] h e a m o u n t of c h ild su p p o rt th a t wo u ld

h a v e b e e n re q u ire d” a

b se n t th e d e v ia tio n –

$ 3,0 5 3 .8 7 p e r m o n th

.

Th e tria l c o u rt fa ile d, h o we v e r, to se t fo rth fin d in g s th a t sa tisfy th e th ird

sta tu to ry re q u ire m e n t. Alth o u g h th e c o u rt re c ite d th a t “th e p re su m p tiv e a m o u n t

support;

(ii) The amount of child support that would have been required under this

Code section if the presumptive amount of child supp o rt had not been

rebutted; and

(iii) How, in its determination:

(I ) Application of the presump tive amount o f child support

would be unjust or inappropriate; and

(I I ) The best interest of the child for w h o m support is being

determined will be served by deviation from the presumptive

amount of child support.

6o f c h ild su p p o rt wo uld b e in a p p ro p ria te a n d th a t th e b e st in te re st o f th e c h ild re n

will b e se rv e d b y d e via tio n d u e to th e re sp o n d e n t’s h ig h in c om e ,” th e c o urt

fa ile d to e x p la in “h ow th e

. . . a p p lic a tio n o f th e c h ild su p p ort g u id e lin e s wo u ld

b e u n ju st o r in a

p p ro p ria te ” a n d “ h o w th e be st in te re st o f th e c h ild

. . . is se rv e d

b y de v ia tio n fro m th e p re su m p tiv e a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt.” O CGA § 1 9 -6 -1 5

(c ) (2 ) (E) (iii) (e m

ph a sis a d d e d ). Ac c o rd OCGA § 9 -6 -1 5 (i) (1 ) (B) (iii).

A fu n d a m e n ta l p u rp o se o f th e c hild su p po rt g u id e lin e s is “ to a c h ie v e th e

sta te po lic y o f a ffo rd in g to c h ild re n of u n m arrie d p a re n ts, to th e e x te n t p o ssib le

,

th e sa m e e c o n o m ic st a n d a r d o f liv in g e n jo y e d b y c h ild re n liv in g in in ta c t

fa m ilie s c on sistin g o f p a re n ts with sim ila r fin a nc ia l m e a n s.” OCGA § 1 9 -6 -1 5

(c ) (1 ). Mo th e r a rg u e s th a t th is c o d ifie d p u rp o se c o m b in e d with th e tria l c o u rt’s

writte n fin d in g s re g a rd in g F a th e r’s an d Mo th e r’s in c om e s in th e two y e a rs

p re c e din g th e o rig in a l d iv o rc e o rd e r imp lie s a fin d in g th a t th e $ 2 ,0 0 0 h ig h

in c o m e d e v ia tio n a d d e d b y th e c o u rt is a p p ro p ria te a nd in th e be st in te re st o f th e

c h ild re n

, b e c a

u se o th e rwise Mo th e r w o u l d n o t b e a b le to pro v id e th e sa m e

e c o n o m ic sta n d a rd o f liv in g th e c h ild re n e n jo y e d w h e n su p po rte d b y b o th

p a re n ts’ in c o m e

. T h i s im p lic a tio n m a y b e su pp orte d by th e re a so n a b le

a ssu m p tio n th a t, in th e a

bse n c e o f e v id e n c e to th e c o ntra ry

, th e b a sic a m o u n t o f

7c h ild su p p o rt fo r fa m ilie s with a c o m b in e d in c o m e o f $ 3 0,0 0 0 p e r m o n th

– th e

m a x im um in c o m e fo r wh ic h th e g u id e lin e s se t a b a sic c h ild su p p o rt o b lig a tio n

– will no t a ffo rd th e “ sa m e e c o n o m ic sta nd a rd o f liv in g” e n jo y e d b y th e c h ild re n

wh o se b e st in te re st is a t issu e h e re

, wh o pre vio u sly liv e d in a h o u se h old with a

c o m b in e d in c o m e o f a lm o st $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 p e r m o n th

. 6

Wh e n re v ie win g d e v ia tio n s fro m th e gu id e lin e s th e Ge n e ra l A s s e m b ly ha s

e n a c te d fo r c hild su p p o r t d e te rm in a tio ns, ho w e v e r, we c a n n o t re ly o n

im p lic a tio n s o r o u r o wn a ssu m p tio ns. Th e tria l c o u rt’s writte n fin d in g s m u st

c o n n e c t th e d ots to e x p la in

– if th is is, in fa c t, wh y th e c o u rt d e v ia t ed

– th a t

a p p ly in g th e p re su m

p tiv e a m o u n t of c h ild su p p o rt w o u ld b e in a pp ro p ria te he re

b e c a u se it wo u ld re su lt in a su b sta n tia l d e c re a se in th e c h ild re n ’s sta n d a rd o f

liv in g a n d th a t th e $ 2 ,0 0 0 h ig h -in c o m e d e via tio n i s i n th e b e st in te re st o f th e

c h ild re n b e c a u se it will g iv e th e m , “ to th e e x te n t p o ssib le

, th e sa m e e c o n o m ic

sta n d a rd o f liv in g e n

jo y e d b y c h ild re n liv in g in in ta c t fa m ilie s” with p a re n ts

e a rn in g a b o u t $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 p e r m o n th

.

Be c a u se th e tria l c ou rt fa ile d to m a ke a ll o f th e n e c e ssa ry w ritte n fin d in g s,

6 I ndeed, if the child support award were c alculated a g ain using only the portion of the

parties’ income ex ceeding $30,000 p er month ($29,829), F a ther would owe another $2,795

– more

than the deviation the trial court applied.

8we m

u st re v e rse th e c hild su p p o rt a wa rd m a d e in th e d iv o rc e o rd e r a s a m e n d e d

a n d re m a n d th e c a se fo r th e c o u rt, if i t i s t o a p p ly a h ig h -in c om e or o th e r

d e v ia tio n

, to first m a k e w ritte n fin d in g s th a t e x p la in h o w th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e

p re su m p tiv e c h ild su p p o rt a m o u n t wo u ld b e u n ju st o r in a p p ro p ria te c o n sid e rin g

th e re la tiv e a b i lity o f e a c h p a re n t to p ro v id e su pp ort an d h ow th e b e st in te re st

o f th e c h ild re n is se rv e d b y th e d e v ia tio n

. S e e S tru n k v

. Stru n k

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 2 8 0

,

2 8 2 (7 5 4 S E2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ Be c a u se th e tria l c o urt fa ile d to m a k e a ll o f th e

n e ce s s ary fin d in gs o f fa c t re q u ire d b y th e sta tu te

, w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t

re la te d to th is issu e a nd re m a n d fo r th e tria l c ou r t t o re de te rm in e th e c h ild

su p p o rt a wa rd a n d su p p o rt a n y [ ] d e v ia tio n wi th th e m a n d a to ry writte n

fin d in g s.” ). 7 We th e re fo re do n o t re a c h F a th e r’s se c o n d e n um e ra tio n o f e rro r

–

7 The dissent would overlook the trial court’s failure to comply w ith the literal requirements

of the child support statute. I n a long line of precedents, however, this Court has insisted that trial

courts fully comply with the statutory p r e r equisites for deviations, e ven when e nsuring such

compliance r equires ex tending the proceeding and may have a de minimis effect on the a mount of

child support ultimately

awarded.

Since the revised child support g uidelines took effect in J uly 2008, this C o urt has

repeated l y emphasiz e d the statute’s clear directive that the[ ] written finding s must

be included in the final child support order if a deviation is made. We have described

the written finding s as “mandatory ” and h eld that, w hen any of the required finding s

are omitted, w e have no choice but to “reverse the trial court’s judg ment a nd remand

th[ e] case to the trial court f or further proceeding s.” Holloway v. Holloway

, 288 Ga.

147, 149 (702 SE2d 132) (2010). Accord Stowell v. Hug uenard, 288 Ga. 628, 632

(706 SE2d 419) ( 2011)

. . . ; Turner v

. T u r n e r

, 2 8 5 G a. 866, 867 ( 684 SE2d 596

(2009)

. . . . W e have reversed child support orders even when w e presumed that the

9h is c la im th a t th e e v id e nc e d i d n o t ju stify th e a p p lic a tio n o f a h ig h-in c om e

d e v ia tio n

– a lth o u gh we n o te th a t w e d id n o t g ra n t h is disc re tio n a ry a p p lic a tio n

to re v ie w th a t issu e a

n d th a t th e e v id e nc e in th e re c ord a pp e a rs to su p po rt su c h

a d e via tio n. S e e Bla c k v

. Bla c k

, 2 9 2 Ga

. 6 9 1, 6 97 (7 4 0 S E 2 d 6 1 3 ) (2 0 1 3 )

(e x p la in in g th a t we “‘re v ie w th e d e c isio n to d e v ia te

, o r n o t to d e v ia te

, fro m th e

p re su m p tiv e a m ou n t of c h ild su p p o rt u n d e r th e a b u se o f d i sc re tio n sta n d a rd ’”

a n d in so do in g

, we “ ‘re v ie w a n y fin d in g s b a s e d on d isp u te d fa c ts o r witn e ss

c re d ib ility u n d e r th e c le a rly e rro n e o u s sta n d a rd ’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )). Se e a lso

F in e v. F in e

, 2 8 1 Ga

. 8 5 0, 8 5 2 -8 5 3 (6 4 2 S E2 d 6 9 8 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (e x p la in in g th a t

wh e re th e re is n o tra n sc rip t o f a n e v id e ntia ry he a rin g

, th is Co u rt will p re su m e

evidence supported the trial court’s actions b ec a u s e t h ere was no transcript of the

proceeding s, see Spurlock v. Dept. of H u m a n Resources, 286 G a. 512, 515 (690

SE2d 378) (2010) (“‘Even presuming the e vidence supporte d t h e trial court’s a ctions,

we must f irst have the required finding s of fact for review so that we know that the

court considered the c orrect factors in ex ercising its discretion.’”), and even when the

amount of the deviation could be characteriz ed as de minimis, see Holloway

, 2 88 Ga.

at 148-149 ( reversing and remanding where the fi n al child support order r equired

pay ments of o nly $18 less than the presumptive amount o f $1,018, because the trial

court did not include the written finding s necessary to support the deviation).

B r og don v

. B rog d on, 290 Ga. 618, 623-624 (723 SE2d 421) (2012). See also B lack v. B lack, 292

Ga. 691, 698 & n .7 ( 740 SE2d 6 13) (2013) (remanding in part for failure to make finding s in support

of $27 per month deviation); Walls v. W alls, 291 Ga. 757, 76 1

- 7 6 2 (732 SE2d 407) (2012)

(remanding in part for failure to make fin ding s to support a $83.20 per month deviation),

disapproved of on other g rounds, McCarthy v. Ashment-McCarthy

, 295 Ga. 231, 233 n.1 (758 SE2d

306) (2014).

1 0th a t e v id e n c e wa s p re se n te d to su p p o rt th e tria l c o urt’s ru lin g ). Th e re m a in in g

p ro v isio ns o f th e div o rc e ju dg m e n t, w h ic h a re no t c h a lle ng e d b y e ith e r p a rty

, a re

a ffirm e d.

In c lo sin g, we n o te th a t, o n a p p e a l

, Mo th e r h a s a rtic u la t e d h o w th e

a p p lic a tio n o f th e p re su m

p tiv e c h ild su p p ort a m o u n t wo u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te a n d

h o w th e be st in te re st o f th e c h ild re n is se rv e d b y a h ig h -in c o m e d e v ia tio n in th is

c a se

. T h a t re a so n in g

, h o we v e r, is n o t sim ila rly artic u la te d in th e tria l c o u rt’s

o rig in a l or a m e n d e d ord e r, a n d Mo th e r n e v e r o ffe re d it to th e tria l c o u rt, in th e

f o r m o f p ro p ose d fin d in g s o f fa c t o r o th e rwise

, e v e n wh e n F a th e r re p e a t e d l y

fo c u se d o n th e a

b se n c e o f th e re q u ire d d e v ia tio n fin d in g s in th e m o tio n s h e file d

a fte r th e o rig in a l d iv o rc e ord e r w a s e n te re d. T o a v o id th e d e la y a n d e x p e n se o f

a p p e a ls a nd p ro c e e d in gs o n re m a n d, p a rtie s a sk in g tria l c o urts to a p p ly

d e v ia tio n s in c h ild su p p o rt a wa rd s sh ou ld a ssist b u sy ju d g e s in e n su rin g th a t a ll

o f th e writte n fin d in g s ne c e ssa ry to su p p o rt su c h d e v ia tio n s h a v e b e e n in c lu d e d

in th e c h ild su p p ort ju dg m e n t.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d in p a rt a nd re v e rse d in p a rt, a n d c a se re m a n d e d with

d ire c tio n . All th e Ju stic e s c on c u r, e xc e pt Hu n ste in , J., wh o d isse n ts.

11S1 4F 1 7 1 1 . F LADGER v

. F L ADGER.

HUNS T EIN, Ju stic e

, d isse n tin g

.

Th e ma j o r i ty a d op ts a n e e d le ssly lite ra listic c on stru c tio n o f th e c h ild

su p p o rt sta tu te in re a c h in g a c o n c lu sio n th a t will h a ve n o p ra c tic a l e ffe c t o th e r

th a n to p ro lo n g th is d iv o rc e litig a tio n

. T h e re su lt h e re ta k e s th e wo rth y g o a l o f

sta tu to ry c o m

p lia n c e to th e e x t r e me a n d

, in so d oin g

, d e la y s re so lu tio n o f th e

p a rtie s’ d iv o rc e a n d d isse rv e s th e c h ild re n wh o se b e st in t e r e s t s th e m a jo rity

c la im s to b e p ro te c tin g

. I se e n o n e e d fo r th e tria l c o u rt to fu rth e r “ c o n n e c t th e

d o ts” a s to its re a so n in g su p p o r t in g th e d e v ia tio n

, wh ic h is p a te n tly o b v io u s

fro m th e writte n fin d in gs th e tria l c o u rt m a d e in th e De c e m be r 2 01 3 a m e n d m e n t.

Ac c o rd in g ly , I m

u st re sp e c tfu lly d isse n t.