1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 126,566

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of 

K.C.,

Appellee,

and

C.C.,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Johnson District Court; PAUL W. BURMASTER, judge. Submitted without oral 

argument. Opinion filed June 28, 2024. Affirmed.

Kelli Cooper, of Olathe, for appellant. 

Joseph W. Booth, of Lenexa, for appellee.

Before BRUNS, P.J., HILL, J., and MARY E. CHRISTOPHER, S.J.

PER CURIAM: Father appeals the district court's decision affirming the ruling of an 

administrative hearing officer setting the start date for Mother's child support obligation. 

The hearing officer's ruling was based on Father's failure to file a child support worksheet 

with his motion to modify. On appeal, Father argues the district court erred in selecting 

the start date for Mother to begin paying child support because it left the minor children 

without support for a 13-month time period. 
2

In Kansas, it is within the purview of the district court to establish the effective 

date of its child support order. It is also not our role to replace our judgment for that of 

the administrative hearing officer or the district court on discretionary questions. Based 

on our review of the record on appeal, we find that the administrative hearing officer and 

the district court acted within the boundaries of their discretion. Thus, we affirm. 

FACTS

Mother and Father were divorced in Oklahoma in 2012. Because their children—

who were born in 2006 and 2007—resided primarily with Mother at that time, Father was 

ordered to pay child support. Unfortunately, the parties were engaged in litigation in 

Oklahoma regarding a variety of parenting issues over the years that are not material to 

the limited issue presented in this appeal.

In April 2019, the divorce case was registered in the Johnson County District 

Court after Mother moved with the children to Kansas. At the time, Father lived in 

Missouri. After the case was registered in Kansas, the parties submitted an agreed order 

modifying child support. 

It appears that Mother petitioned for protection from abuse against her then 

husband—who is a registered sex offender— on October 21, 2021. She alleged that her

husband had sexually abused one of the children. After Father learned that the Mother's 

new husband had been arrested, Father also filed a petition for protection from abuse on 

behalf of the children and was granted temporary residency under a protection from 

abuse order. 

On December 2, 2021, Father moved to modify custody, residency, parenting 

time, and child support. In his motion, Father requested sole legal custody of the children 

and requested that "Mother should be ordered to pay Father child support pursuant to his 
3

Child Support Worksheet filed herein." However, it is undisputed that Father failed to file 

a child support worksheet at that time. Although Father's motion requested that his child 

support obligation end on December 31, 2021, he did not request an effective date for 

Mother's child support obligation to begin. 

Subsequently, Father filed a domestic relations affidavit in which he claimed he 

had no income. Still, he did not file a child support worksheet. Although it is difficult to 

ascertain with certainty what happened in this case over the next year in the record 

provided to this court, Father's motion was finally heard by an administrative hearing 

officer on February 1, 2023. At the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer noted that he 

could not find any child support worksheet filed by Father in the record. 

The parties then stipulated that Father owed $12,406.92 in past due child support. 

In addition, the parties agreed that Father's child support obligation ended December 31, 

2021, and that Mother's child support obligation would be offset against his arrearage 

until the amount he owed was paid in full. After the stipulations were announced on the 

record, the hearing officer sought clarification regarding the parties' agreement. 

In particular, the following exchange occurred regarding the effective date of 

Mother's child support payments: 

"THE COURT: So if a support obligation is established requiring (Mother) to 

pay support, would it commence January 1, 2022?

"[FATHER'S ATTORNEY]: Correct, and I think that's agreed.

"[MOTHER'S ATTORNEY]: I think that's their position. 

"That's not going to be our position, but we do agree that his child support 

obligation per the Oklahoma order ended 12-31 of '21. We do agree with that." 

Furthermore, Mother's counsel argued:
4

"[MOTHER'S ATTORNEY]: You correctly noted that . . . although [Father] 

filed a motion in December of 2021, . . . . through today's date [he] has not filed the 

required child support worksheet per Rule 139.

"And I quote that rule, and this is in Rule 139(e)(2), motion to modify support 

order, says a party filing a motion to modify a support order must—so it's mandatory, that 

the child support worksheet accompany the DRA." 

Mother's counsel represented to the hearing officer that Father had still not filed 

the required child support worksheet with the clerk of the district court, and the child 

support worksheet had merely been included in the exhibits produced at the hearing that 

day. Because the child support worksheet had not been filed with Father's motion to 

modify child support, Mother's attorney asked that the date of the hearing be set as the 

effective date for her child support obligation to commence. In addition, Mother's counsel 

pointed out that under K.S.A. 23-3005(b), the effective date of the modification was left 

it to the court's discretion and argued that it would be inequitable to make her child 

support obligation effective as of January 1, 2022, because Father had failed to make 

reasonable efforts to pay his child support obligation. 

After taking the matter under advisement, the administrative hearing officer 

entered an order on February 6, 2023. The hearing officer adopted the parties' agreement 

as to the amount of Father's arrearage and ordered that it be offset against the Mother's 

child support obligation until satisfied. The hearing officer also set Mother's child support 

obligation at $1,204 per month. Significant to this appeal, the hearing officer ordered that 

Mother's child support obligation become effective on the date of the hearing. In making 

this determination, the hearing officer noted: "The support worksheet required by 

Supreme Court Rule 139 was filed with the Court this date." 

Although the administrative hearing officer granted Father's motion for rehearing, 

it reaffirmed its ruling regarding the effective date for Mother's child support obligation 

to begin. Father then sought review by the district court under Johnson County District 
5

Court Rule 26(13)(a)(ii). On April 13, 2023, the district court found that the hearing 

officer did not abuse his discretion in setting the effective date of Mother's child support 

obligation and affirmed his determination. 

Thereafter, Father timely filed a notice of appeal. 

ANALYSIS

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in affirming the hearing 

officer's ruling regarding the effective date of Mother's child support obligation. Child 

support obligations in a divorce action are governed by statutes enacted by the Kansas 

Legislature as well as by guidelines established by the Kansas Supreme Court. See 

K.S.A. 23-3001 et seq. (governing court's obligation and authority to make provisions for 

child support); K.S.A. 20-165 (mandating Supreme Court to adopt rules establishing 

child support guidelines); Kansas Child Support Guidelines, Administrative Order No. 

2023-RL-080 (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 101). 

Under Johnson County District Court Local Rule 26(13)(a)(ii) and Kansas 

Supreme Court Rule 172(h) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 237), the district court is to apply an 

abuse of discretion standard in reviewing an administrative hearing officer's ruling on a 

motion to modify child support. Likewise, we review the district court's decision for 

abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Johnson, 50 Kan. App. 2d 687, 691, 336 P.3d 

330 (2014). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, 

fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error 

of fact. In re Spradling, 315 Kan. 552, 590, 509 P.3d 483 (2022). 

Notwithstanding, to the extent that we are required to interpret the Kansas Child 

Support Guidelines, our review is unlimited. In re Marriage of Brand, 273 Kan. 346, 350, 

44 P.3d 321 (2002); In re Marriage of Dean, 56 Kan. App. 2d 770, 773, 437 P.3d 46 
6

(2018). In addition, statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which we 

exercise unlimited review. In re Marriage of Shafer, 317 Kan. 481, 484, 531 P.3d 524 

(2023). In interpreting the applicable statutes and guidelines, we are to first look to the 

language used. Only if that language is ambiguous are we to examine legislative history 

or look to the rules of statutory construction. In re Marriage of Brown, 295 Kan. 966, 

969, 291 P.3d 55 (2012); see Chalmers v. Burrough, 314 Kan. 1, 8, 494 P.3d 128 (2021). 

Under K.S.A. 23-3005(b), orders modifying child support may be ordered 

"retroactive to the first day of the month following the filing of the motion to modify." A 

retroactive order of support is what Father is requesting here. Certainly, the 

administrative hearing officer and the district court had the discretionary authority under 

this statute to grant Father's request for a retroactive effective date for Mother's child 

support obligation to commence. But the plain language of the statute did not require 

them to do so. 

K.S.A. 23-3002(b) requires that a domestic relations affidavit and a child support 

worksheet to be filed in any motion requesting a child support order or a modification of 

child support. This requirement also exists in Supreme Court Rule 139(b) and (c) (2024 

Kan. S. Ct. R. at 217). The purpose of the requirement is to give advance notice regarding 

what each party is claiming regarding their income, expenses, and amount of child 

support requested. See In re Marriage of Fuller, 52 Kan. App. 2d 721, 726, 371 P.3d 964 

(2016). 

Here, it is undisputed that although Father moved to modify child support on 

December 2, 2021, he did not comply with the requirement to submit his child support 

worksheet until February 1, 2023. We agree that failing to file a child support worksheet 

contemporaneous with the filing of a motion to modify child support is not—in and of 

itself—a fatal error. See Jones v. Jones, 45 Kan. App. 2d 854, 857, 268 P.3d 494 (2010).

This is because the district court continues to have the discretion under K.S.A. 23-
7

3005(b) to order child support "retroactive to the first day of the month following the 

filing of the motion to modify." 

Based on our review of the record on appeal, we find that neither the 

administrative hearing officer nor the district court made a mistake of law. Moreover, we

find that neither based their decision on an error of law. Instead, the determination of the 

effective date of Mother's child support obligation was a matter that fell within the sound 

discretion of the hearing officer and ultimately upon the district court.

In light of Father's 14-month delay in filing his child support worksheet, we do not 

find that the decisions of the administrative hearing officer and the district court 

regarding the effective date of Mother's child support obligation to be arbitrary, fanciful, 

or unreasonable. This is especially true in light of Father's significant arrearage in child 

support payments owed to Mother. Nevertheless, we would caution hearing officers and 

district courts about leaving children without a child support order in place for long 

periods of time. Under the unique circumstances presented, we find that each party 

should pay his or her own attorney fees, and we deny Mother's motion under Kansas 

Supreme Court Rule 7.07(b) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 52) to recover her appellate attorney 

fees from Father. 

Affirmed.