Opinion ID: 2513966
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: John failed to preserve for appeal his challenge to the interim child support award.

Text: John argues that the superior court erred by failing to use the prescribed guidelines under Civil Rule 90.3(a) to determine John's interim child support obligation, instead pulling a figure out of thin air. John never challenged the correctness of the interim child support award before the superior court. As such, he failed to preserve this claim for appeal. [6] Even if John had preserved this claim, the interim award was well within the court's discretion. The only evidence of John's income before the court when it issued the interim child support order in December 1999 was his child support guidelines affidavit, which indicated that his monthly net income was $4,938.75 and that his corresponding child support obligation would be $987.75. Kristeen is thus correct in asserting that the information before the court could have justified an award of $987.75, let alone an award of $750. Granted, John's income figures were based on the assumption that John would be returning to his position in New Mexico, which never occurred. John provided no new income figures for the court, however, and did not submit a new child support guidelines affidavit. [7] Accordingly, even if John had preserved this argument for appeal, setting the interim award at $750 was well within the court's broad equitable powers to fashion a child support award. [8]