Opinion ID: 1196926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Willis's Other Arguments Are Without Merit.

Text: Willis also argues that CSED cannot apply subsection (c)(1)'s hardship exemption without first formally adopting standards to elaborate the manner in which the exemption will be applied. [14] But the hardship exemption itself already exists as an integral part of a larger procedural rule, Civil Rule 90.3. That rule gives parties a uniform, simple, and reliable basis for predicting child support payments. [15] As a narrow exception within a broader rule, subsection (c)(1) applies only to unusual cases, and its application is determined through an individualized process of formal adjudication that involves discretion at both the agency and judicial levels. The exception must therefore be sufficiently flexible to serve the individualized context in which it is used. Moreover, the exception is explained in a thorough commentary. [16] Finally, we note that while CSED has adopted Rule 90.3 for use in its own administrative hearings, the rule itself is a rule of court that this court adopted for use in judicial proceedings. Given that judges routinely apply this rule in its present form in the courtroom, to demand additional interpretative regulations before CSED can use the rule in the administrative setting would obviously be nonsensical. And because this court reviews decisions applying Rule 90.3 and retains the power to construe and modify the rule, any attempt to define it through a CSED regulation would only invite conflict between judicial and administrative interpretations. Accordingly, we find no merit to Willis's claim that the exception is incapable of being enforced without an additional regulatory layer. Willis separately argues that the unexplained reduction that CSED granted as to his ongoing support obligation is arbitrary, capricious, and obviously insufficient. While we decline to hold that the reduction is insufficient as a matter of law, we note that the hearing officer will now have the opportunity to consider this issue further and to explain the decision it makes on remand.