No. 95-149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995

IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF ADAM ANDREW DUERSCHMIDT KOCHIS, AMinor Child. WAYLAND DUERSCHMIDT, Petitioner andAppellant, 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 OperatingRules, the following decision shall not be citedasprecedent andshallbepublishedbyits filing as a public document withthe Clerkof the SupremeCourt andbya 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 indeterminingMarla Kochis's child support obligation. Wayland and Marla are the parents of Adam Kochis. The District Court grantedWaylandcustodyofAdam, andWayland sought child support from Marla. The parties were unable to agree on a suitable amount for the child support obligation. Afterthe Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) anda SpecialMaster failed to determine an agreeable child support obligation, WaylandandMarla agreedto haveAnn Steffens, a CSED employee whom theyretained in her private capacity, determine Marla's child support obligation. Steffens reviewed the available financial information and completedherchildsupportobligationcalculations. Shesubmitted 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 obligationwas 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. Areview of the record reveals that Steffens had access to and examined substantial financial records as toMarlapersonallyandas 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 basedon 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