No. 86-329 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

IN RE THE MATTER OF CHILD SUPPORT, 

MARY ANN ISAACS, n/k/a KURTZ, 

Petitioner and Respondent, 

MURR ISAACS, 

Respondent and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, 

The Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. 

COIJNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

D. Michael Eakin and Russell LaVigne, Montana Legal 

Services, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

J. Dennis Corbin, Miles City, Montana 

- -- -- -- 

Submitted on Briefs: Sept. 25, 1986 

Decided: December 9, 1986 

Filed: 

DEC 9 - 1986 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court 

for Yellowstone County, granting $150 per month in child 

support to the father. We remand to the District Court for 

clarification. 

The issues are: 

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by 

granting an amount of child support which is less than the 

amount determined under the Carlson formula and less than the 

boys would be entitled to under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ? 

2. Did the District Court err by failing to make adequate findings as to how the amount of child support was 

determined? 

The parents marriage was dissolved in 1976. The mother 

was awarded sole custody of the younger son, Charles, and the 

father was given sole custody of the older son, William. 

Both parties were to provide support for the child in their 

custody. The father was also ordered to pay the mother $75 

per month for the support of Charles. 

In December 1985 Charles was found to be a youth in need 

of care and was removed from his mother's custody and placed 

in his father's custody. That court order stated that "any 

determination as to what, if any, support should be paid by 

the boy's natural mother to the boy's natural father for his 

care, should be determined in the Court of original jurisdiction in Yellowstone County." Shortly thereafter, the father 

filed his petition for child support, and in March 1986 he 

moved for temporary child support. He asked for $180 per 

month for each boy. 
At the hearing, the mother's monthly income was established as between $800 and slightly over $900. The father 

testified that he had been laid off from his job at which he 

had earned $1,298.90 per month and was presently receiving 

$644 per month in unemployment benefits. The District Court 

ordered the mother to pay $150 per month in child support 

until Charles reaches the age of majority. The father 

appeals. 

Did the District Court abuse its discretion by granting 

an amount of child support which is less than the amount 

determined under the Carlson formula and less than the boys 

would be entitled to under Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) ? 

The parents agree that child support must be determined 

in accordance with § 40-4-204(1), MCA: 

In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, legal 

separation, maintenance, or child support, the 

court may order either or both parents owing a duty 

of support to a child to pay an amount reasonable 

or necessary for his support, without regard to 

marital misconduct, after considering all relevant 

factors including: 

(a) the financial resources of the child; 

(b) the financial resources of the custodial 

parent; 

(c) the standard of living the child would 

have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; 

(d) the physical and emotional condition of 

the child and his educational needs; 

(e) the financial resources and needs of the 

noncustodial parent; and 

(f) for the purposes of determining a minimum 

amount for support, the amount received by children 

under the AFDC program, as defined in 53-2-702. 

Modification of child support must comply with § 40-4-208(b), 

MCA : 

Whenever the decree proposed for modification 

contains provisions relating to maintenance or 

support, modifi.cation under subsection (1) may only 

be made: 
(i) upon a showing of changed circumstances so 

substantial and continuing as to make the terms 

unconscionable; or 

(ii) upon written consent of the parties. 

The court's findings and conclusions do not specify the 

statutes employed in rendering its decision. After making 

findings concerning the custody of the children and the 

income of both parents, the District Court made this finding: 

7. The present circumstances of petitioner, 

in the way she is supporting her present family, 

has the effect, to at least some degree, of placing 

support of her current husband ahead of supporting 

her children. Some realignment of priorities in 

that regard appears appropriate. 

The court concluded: 

1. That the respondent is the legal custodian 

of the two minor children of the parties. 

2. That the petitioner is financially able to 

contribute to the support of said minor children. 

3. That based upon the incomes of the parties 

and the needs of the children, the petitioner, MARY 

ANN KURTZ, is able to contribute the amount of 

$150.00 as child support for the minor children, 

commencing June lst, 1986, and on the 1st day of 

each month thereafter, until the youngest of the 

children shall have attained majority or otherwise 

become emancipated. 

The mother contends that the father failed to meet the 

criteria set forth in § 40-4-208, MCA, and that therefore no 

child support could be awarded for William. It is true that 

the father did not allege and the District Court did not 

specifically state that there was a change of circumstances 

so that the original support decree is now unconscionable. 

However, it is obvious that the change of custody of Charles 

was a changed circumstance so substantial and continuing as 

to make the original child support terms unconscionable. 

The father states that the order for $150 per month in 

child support does not comply with the formula set forth in 

In re Marriage of Carlson (Mont. 1984), 693 P.2d 496, 41 
St.Rep. 2419. That formula sets the child support amount 

based on the ratios of the parents' incomes as they relate to 

the total needs of the child. The father argues that under 

that formula, even if his pre-layoff income rather than his 

unemployment income was used, the wife would be required to 

pay child support of $287 per month, to meet the needs of the 

boys as determined by the amounts of AFDC, food stamps, and 

Medicaid to which they would be entitled. However, the 

formula in Carlson was offered as a guideline, not a requirement. Also, this Court has never required that children's 

needs be set at the total of AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid 

amounts for that number of children. The statutory standards 

control. 

The father also states that the amount of child support 

ordered by the court does not provide support for the children in an amount at least equal to what they would be entitled to under the AFDC program. He points out that the AFDC 

amount must be considered under S 40-4-204(1) (f), MCA, and 

states the monthly AFDC amount as $354. Actually, that is 

the amount for two children and an adult. The amount for two 

children is $104 per month. Section 46.10.403 (4) (b) , A.R.M. 

The court's support amount exceeds that. 

We conclude that the District Court did not err on 

either of these grounds. 

I1 

Did the District Court err by failing to make adequate 

findings as to how the amount of child support was 

determined? 

The father cites Hansen v. Jurgens (Mont. 1986), 722 

P.2d 1151, 43 St.Rep. 1316, in which we remanded findings and 
conclusions for clarification of the origin of the amount set 

for child support: 

Because the [child support] figure appears inconsistent with other relevant findings supported in 

the record and its origin is not clear from the 

record on appeal, this Court remands the original 

District Court order to the . . . judge for clarification on this point. 

Hansen, 722 P.2d at 1155. 

Here, the District Court stated that it based its order 

on the incomes of the parties and the needs of the children. 

The court received into evidence tables of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture estimates of the costs of raising a child. It 

made specific findings as to the income of the parents, but 

nowhere in the findings and conclusions does the court set 

forth any statement of the needs of the children. As was 

true in the Hansen case, the origin of the child support 

figure is not clear from the record. A child support amount 

cannot be set or reviewed without a determination of the 

needs of the children. Accordingly, we remand to the District Court for clarification of the findings, conclusions 

and order. 

We Concur: