Opinion ID: 1219332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interim Child Support Award

Text: Alton challenges a March 25, 1988 trial court order which required him to pay $900 per month in interim child support. The obligation was made retroactive to the parties' date of separation, April 1, 1986, and was to continue until final resolution of the case. While Alton clearly owed some amount of child support beginning with the date of separation, we are unable to determine whether the $900 per month award is appropriate because the court has not made findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the award. Civil Rule 52(a). It is also uncertain whether Alton was given credit for the amount he spent to support the children after the separation. Alton kept records which indicate that he gave Lee Ann $830 in cash, and spent several thousand dollars directly on the children for food, clothes and medical care. He claims he is entitled to a setoff of between $8,640 and $14,400 against the retroactive award. [1] The trial court's order does not indicate how much, if any, of this was deducted from Alton's child support obligation. Our decision in Young v. Williams, 583 P.2d 201 (Alaska 1978) does not preclude a reduction in Alton's obligations in this case. In Young we found that as a general rule when a defendant husband is required by a divorce decree to pay to the plaintiff money for the support of the children and the unpaid and accrued installments become judgments in favor of the plaintiff, he cannot, as a matter of law, claim credit on account of payments voluntarily made directly to the children... . Id. at 203 (quoting Briggs v. Briggs, 178 Or. 193, 165 P.2d 772, 777 (1946)). The Young rule does not apply where, as in the present case, no child support order exists and the parties have not independently reached a clear agreement as to custody and their respective support obligations. On remand the trial court should specify whether and to what extent it credited Alton for his expenditures and, if it failed to do so, the court should adjust the retroactive award in such amount as it finds appropriate.