No. 95-149 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1995 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF 

ADAM ANDREW DUERSCHMIDT KOCHIS, 

A Minor Child. 

WAYLAND DUERSCHMIDT, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

MARLA KOCHIS, 

Respondent and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Wayland R. Duerschmidt, Pro Se, Plains, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Paulette C. Ferguson, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: September 21, 1995 

Decided: October 31, 1995 

Filed: 

"*rk 
· '. 

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Pursuant to Section It Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be 

cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public 

document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its 

result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing 

Company. 

Wayland Duerschmidt appeals the decision of the Fourth 

Judicial District Court, Missoula County, establishing Marla 

Kochis's child support obligation. We affirm. 

The sole issue is whether the District Court abused its 

discretion in determining Marla Kochis's child support obligation. 

Wayland and Marla are the parents of Adam Kochis. The 

District Court granted Wayland custody of Adam, and Wayland sought 

child support from Marla. The parties were unable to agree on a 

suitable amount for the child support obligation. After the Child 

Support Enforcement Division (CSED) and a Special Master failed to 

determine an agreeable child support obligation, Wayland and Marla 

agreed to have Ann Steffens, a CSED employee whom they retained in 

her private capacity, determine Marla's child support obligation. 

Steffens reviewed the available financial information and 

completed her child support obligation calculations. She submitted 

her report to the District Court on September 14, 1994. Following 

a hearing on the matter, the District Court accepted Steffens's 

calculation of Marla's support obligation. 

2 
· . 

Wayland argues on appeal that Marla's support obligation was 

based on incomplete financial information. He insists that Marla 

constantly refused to submit sufficient financial information 

concerning a business owned by herself and her husband. He 

therefore argues that the District Court erred in adopting 

Steffens's calculation of child support. 

We review a district court's award of child support to 

determine if the court abused its discretion. In re the Marriage 

of Craib (1994), 266 Mont. 483, 490, 880 P.2d 1379, 1384. A review 

of the record reveals that Steffens had access to and examined 

substantial financial records as to Marla personally and as to her 

business. In her report to the court, Steffens stated, "I was 

provided with tax returns, bank statements, ledger sheets, work 

papers, etc, for the corporation "The District Court 

record also indicates that Wayland failed to present any evidence 

through testimony or otherwise which would warrant further 

investigation of Marla's corporate finances. 

We conclude that Steffens's child support calculations were 

based on sufficient, reliable financial information. We therefore 

hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its 

award of child support. We affirm the District Court's decision. 

3 
• J 

A 

We concur: 

4