Opinion ID: 2164776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equalization of support.

Text: He also contends the court is required to equalize the available income among Jason and the four McNamara children. He cites no authorities holding that equality must be preserved in apportioning support for children under these circumstances. Section 675.1, The Code, provides that the parents of an illegitimate child owe the child necessary maintenance, education and support. There is nothing in that section nor in any other to indicate this means anything more than or less than the standard in dissolution cases relating to support orders in relation to the children . . . as shall be justified under § 598.21, The Code. We therefore give consideration to applicable principles relating to child support under that section. The firmly established rule in setting child support is that all of the circumstances of the parties must be considered, and a determination made accordingly; precedents are of little value in setting these amounts as each case is different on its facts. See In re Marriage of Beeh, 214 N.W.2d 170, 173 (Iowa 1974). Beeh held that a trial court was justified in providing for more support for children over 14 than for those under 14, because of their different needs. Certain fixed expenses for each of these parties here, such as house payments, improvement loan payments, utilities, telephone, union dues, and others, are the same regardless of whether the custodial parent has one or four children to care for. In this case, therefore, it would be illogical for us to assume that Jason, as an only child, could be supported for the same amount as one of the McNamara children. Each of the cases relied upon to support the equalization of income concept of appellant is distinguishable upon its facts. They all require examination of the peculiar circumstances of each case to determine the support allocation. In addition, in only two of them was the reviewing court bound, as we are here, to affirm the support allocations if supported by substantial evidence. The balance of the cases cited are de novo reviews in dissolution cases; even so, none of the cases cited establish or lend support to appellant's theory of equalization of income urged here. The trial court did not err in refusing to accept plaintiff's equalization theory.