Opinion ID: 2625357
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Increase in child support obligation

Text: Judge Hunt arrived at Teseniar's child support obligation by adopting the Palmer court's child support obligation figure for Teseniar's children from a prior marriage, not merely the other court's estimation of Teseniar's income. By adopting the Palmer court's monthly obligation figure, Judge Hunt did not go through the Rule 90.3 calculations using Spicer's income and allowing deductions such as the child support Teseniar paid for his prior children as provided in Rule 90.3(a)(1)(B). [12] It is unlikely that Teseniar's obligation to his two children with Spicer would be identical to his child support obligation to the children from his earlier marriage, given that the prior obligation would be factored into the calculation of his current obligation. [13] Courts must follow the legal standards set forth in Rule 90.3 in determining awards of child support. [14] We therefore conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Hunt to increase Teseniar's obligation to correspond to the Palmer court's child support obligation figure. [15]