Opinion ID: 1649117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extra Expenses Provision

Text: At the outset, we recognize that a change in the physical care provisions of the decree constitutes a substantial change in circumstances for purposes of an action to modify the child support provisions of the decree. The support provisions in the original decree in this case were based on joint physical care. Once the trial court modified the decree to award primary physical care of the children to Timothy, the support provisions would need to reflect this new arrangement. The district court modified the child support provisions to require Debra to pay a monthly amount of child support as calculated under the uniform child support guidelines. In light of this provision, which was not challenged on appeal, the issue is whether the additional support provision of the original decree requiring the parties to share certain specific expenses of the children is still warranted. The purpose of the child support guidelines is to set an amount of support that will cover the normal and reasonable costs of supporting a child. See Iowa Code § 598.21(4)( a ) (stating the court may order either parent or both parents to pay an amount reasonable and necessary for supporting the child); Iowa Ct. R. 9.3 (stating the guidelines will normally provide reasonable support). The amount of support determined by the guidelines is designed to encompass the normal needs of a child, except for medical support and postsecondary education expenses. See Iowa Code § 598.21(4)( a ) (discussing medical support in the second paragraph); id. § 598.21(5)( a ) (discussing postsecondary education expenses). Thus, it would be necessary to supplement the amount of support as provided under the guidelines with additional support provisions, or otherwise deviate from the guidelines, only to take into account unique expenses of a child not contemplated under the guidelines. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.3. While the line between normal and extraordinary expenses may not be clear, we do not believe the extra expense provision in this case is justified. See In re Arabian, 151 N.H. 109, 855 A.2d 560, 562 (2004) (`Extracurricular activities fall into the same category of basic support as food, shelter and recreation.' Such expenses are included in the parties' total support obligation. Thus, the court erred by requiring the petitioner to pay for part of the minor child's extracurricular activity expenses in addition to child support under the guidelines. (Citations omitted.)); see also Money v. Money, 852 P.2d 1158, 1165 (Alaska 1993) (holding that father was not required to contribute to cost of son's hockey camp); cf. In re Marriage of Goodman, 690 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Iowa 2004) (concluding sorority expenses and cash allowance were postsecondary education expenses). There is no evidence that the expenses of Brittany and Joshua for school-related activities, extracurricular activities, clothes, and automobiles are not normally incurred by other children and would not have been factored into the guidelines. These activities and items are not unique to the lives of children, and the record in this case reveals no evidence that the expenses of these children were significantly different than normally incurred by other children of their age. While some expenses, normally based on choices made by parents in the best interest of the child, may justify an extraordinary expense clause, or a deviation from the guidelines, the expenses in this case do not.