Consequently, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if it uses the multiple family adjustment in the guidelines to establish an initial support order against a noncustodial parent. 2d 577, Syl. As we noted in Huffman , to restrict the use of the Multiple Family Adjustment only when increasing an existing order is illogical and inequitable. When the Guidelines do not control, the district court has discretion in using the Multiple Family Adjustment to establish the support obligation of the noncustodial parent. In the present case, where the Guidelines do not limit the authority of the district court, sound reasons support continuing application of the Multiple Family Adjustment unless and until cause why it should be discontinued is shown.
Courts have continuing jurisdiction to modify child support orders when circumstances change.
If the circumstances warranting the previously applied Multiple Family Adjustment are not among those that have changed, the district court need not eliminate it when the modification sought is not an increase by the custodial parent. In the present case there has been no showing that the district court's action was arbitrary or unreasonable, and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was an abuse of judicial discretion. SRS next argues that the district court abused its discretion in setting the child support payments too low for Benoit's education and professional experience. At the heart of SRS's position is its contention that Benoit voluntarily quit her job as a school psychologist. According to Benoit's testimony on her motion to reduce child support, she was given the opportunity to resign rather than not having her employment contract renewed and she took that opportunity.