Opinion ID: 2334045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Melson Formula Approved

Text: Even before the impetus of the federal child support project, this Court had concluded that mandatory guidelines and standards were essential for decisions in child support cases. Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., Del.Supr., 442 A.2d 1373, 1377 (1982). We noted that, in the public interest, the judges of the Family Court should apply the same basic approach in exercising their statutory powers and obligations. Id. Therefore, we directed the Family Court to adopt a  [r]ule prescribing mandatory guidelines and standards, which will insure that findings, conclusions, and supporting reasons therefor, in all future ... child support cases, will be uniformly, clearly, and fully set forth by the Trial Judges. Id. At the present time, the procedure used by the Delaware Family Court in support cases is still referred to as the Melson Formula. However, in response to this Court's directive, its common law precepts and refinements are now set forth, with precision, in a Family Court rule and in two official forms. The basic principles of the Melson Formula are now found in Delaware Family Court Civil Rule 52(c): [37] (c) Child Support Cases. The Court, in order to provide a uniform, equitable approach in applying Delaware law to all child support cases, shall consider the following: (1) Each support obligor's monthly net income. (2) The absolute minimum amount of income each support obligor must retain to function at maximum productivity. (3) The number of support obligor's dependents in an effort to apportion the amount available for support as equally as possible between or among said dependents according to their respective needs. (4) The primary child support needs and the primary support obligation of each obligor. (5) The available net income for a Standard of Living Adjustment (SOLA) to be paid by each support obligor after meeting their own primary needs and those of dependents. (6) A consideration of the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. Section 514. Fam.Ct.Civ.R. 52(c). An intergral part of the Family Court Rule which recognizes the Melson Formula are two comprehensive official forms that are used in its application. [38] Form 509(p) (Appendix I) (Delaware child support procedure and recognition of the presumptive applicability of procedure) and Form 509 (Appendix II) (child support calculation). [39] We have reviewed the statutory criteria which the Family Court must consider in deciding support cases. 13 Del. C. § 514. We have also considered the Family Court's statutory directive to the Family Court to provide for uniform policies in the exercise of jurisdiction. 10 Del.C. § 907(5). We have concluded that the procedure used by the Family Court of the State of Delaware, in deciding child support cases, known as the Melson Formula, and reflected in the provisions of Family Court Civil Rule 52(c) and its official Forms 509p and 509 [40] , is consistent with the letter and the spirit of 13 Del.C. §§ 504, 514 and 10 Del.C. § 907(5). [41] We attach particular significance to the fact that the Melson Formula is recognized and operates as a rebuttable presumption in all child support cases. [42] As a rebuttable presumption, the Delaware procedure provides for a uniform approach to child support decisions, unless the Family Court is persuaded that an application of the Melson Formula would be inequitable. Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., Del.Supr., 442 A.2d 1373, 1377 (1982). Therefore, all persons are ensured of equal treatment, without restricting the authority of the [Family] Court to establish an order outside of the scope of the formula when the unique facts of a particular case so warrant. [43] In the event that the Family Court does not enter an order in accordance with the calculations otherwise provided for pursuant to the Melson Formula, traditional notions of jurisprudence require that it to do two things. First, it must give the reasons for its conclusion that the presumptive applicability of the Melson Formula has been rebutted. Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., Del.Supr., 442 A.2d 1373, 1376-77 (1982); Husband M. v. Wife D., Del.Supr., 399 A.2d 847, 848 (1979). Second, it must give reasons for the decision that it does enter and which is in variance with the result that would otherwise follow from an application of the Melson Formula. Husband M. v. Wife D., 399 A.2d at 848. These two requirements are indispensable to a meaningful appellate review. [44] Gregory J.M. v. Carolyn A.M., 442 A.2d at 1376-77. Moreover, to the extent that cases are decided that vary from the Melson Formula and are affirmed on appeal or unchallenged, they will provide the basis for assuring uniformity to the parties in similar situations.