Opinion ID: 1161005
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ounalaska Corporation dividends

Text: Robinson contends that his dividends should not be considered income because they go directly to CSED to pay off his child support arrears. We disagree. Rule 90.3 provides that income from all sources should be considered in determining an obligor's ability to pay. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1). The rule then provides a list of items that can be deducted or excluded from gross income. Money used to pay child support arrears for the children whose support is currently at issue does not appear on this list. Significantly, however, the rule does exempt from income child support and alimony payments arising from prior relationships ... [that] are actually paid. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This provision demonstrates that the rule is intended to exempt from the obligor's income only child support payments for other children. [2] Furthermore, an interpretation of Rule 90.3 that would permit parents in Robinson's situation to deduct from their income money used to pay child support arrears is incompatible with the underlying objective of the rule. The primary purpose of Rule 90.3 is to ensure that child support orders are adequate to meet the needs of children, subject to the ability of the parents to pay. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, commentary I.B. If an obligor were permitted to deduct money used to pay arrears, then it would be in his or her interest to accumulate arrears in order to decrease future child support payments. Clearly, creating such an incentive would jeopardize the rule's goal of providing for the needs of children.