Opinion ID: 2195103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Child Support for Subsequently Born Child

Text: Shannon's first assignment of error asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Joseph a deviation from the child support guidelines based upon his obligation to support a subsequently born child. The Nebraska Child Support Guidelines contain two provisions related to credit that may be given for other children. In paragraph E(6), the guidelines state: Other Children. Subject to Paragraph T, credit may be given for biological or adopted children for whom the obligor provides regular support. Paragraph T, which went into effect on September 1, 2002, provides: Limitation on Decrease. An obligor shall not be allowed a reduction in an existing support order solely because of the birth, adoption, or acknowledgement of subsequent children of the obligor; however, a duty to provide regular support for subsequent children may be raised as a defense to an action for an upward modification of such existing support order. Joseph raised the defense of subsequent children at the trial held on August 19, 2003. When Joseph was asked if he and his current wife had any children, he responded that they were expecting a child in about a month. Shannon objected when Joseph was asked when the child was due. The trial court reserved ruling on the relevancy objection and allowed Joseph to make a record. Joseph testified that the child was due September 22. At the hearing on the motions for new trial, the court received into evidence the birth certificate of the child, showing that she was born on September 27. In its order of February 23, 2004, the court allowed Joseph a deduction of $411 from his income for the support of the third child. [3-5] The child support guidelines are to be applied as a rebuttable presumption to both temporary and permanent support, and any deviation from the guidelines must take into consideration the best interests of the children. See Dueling v. Dueling, 257 Neb. 862, 601 N.W.2d 516 (1999). A court may deviate from the guidelines when one or both of the parties have provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992). In Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 292-93, 622 N.W.2d 670, 673 (2001), this court stated, The party requesting a deviation from the guidelines based upon an obligation to support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears the burden of providing evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of the other parent of the child or children of the subsequent relationship. In Emery v. Moffett, ante p. 867, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2005), we cited Brooks and noted that there is no precise mathematical formula for calculating child support when subsequent children are involved. [T]he calculation is left to the discretion of the court as long as the court considered the obligations to both families and the income of the other parent of the subsequent children. Emery v. Moffett, ante at 871, ___ N.W.2d at ___. The trial court has discretion to choose if and how to calculate the deviation, but must do so in a manner that does not benefit one family at the expense of the other. Id. Joseph presented evidence concerning his income and that of his current wife, including their joint income tax return for 2002 and their pay stubs. The trial court used this information in calculating Joseph's child support obligation for the two children born of his marriage to Shannon. The court found that it was equitable to grant a deduction of $411 for the child born subsequent to the dissolution decree in calculating the modification of child support for the prior children. Shannon concedes that it is certainly fair, at some point, to give [Joseph] a reduction for the support of subsequently born children. Brief for appellant at 22. However, she argues that the circumstances of the case had not yet reached that point and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a deviation from the guidelines. Two questions are presented: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a deduction for the support of the child born to Joseph and his current wife and (2) whether the amount of the deduction was an abuse of discretion. Modification of child support is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. See Emery v. Moffett, supra . An appellate court reviews proceedings for modification of child support de novo on the record and will affirm the judgment of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. Id. It is true that if the case had been decided earlier, the child of Joseph and his current wife would not have been a consideration that affected the child support calculation. However, under the circumstances of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion to allow a deviation from the child support guidelines pursuant to paragraph T. This case was plagued by delays, none of which were necessarily attributable to either party. The district court calculated child support for the children of Joseph's first marriage while taking into consideration his obligation to the child of his second marriage. The court therefore determined child support in an interdependent manner that considered the obligation to each family, and we find no abuse of discretion in that determination. See Emery v. Moffett, supra .