Opinion ID: 1851218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applying the Child Support Guidelines

Text: Our child support statutes set forth a strong public policy requiring the courts to assure the proper support and maintenance of minor children. Guthmiller v. Guthmiller, 448 N.W.2d 643 (N.D.1989). Courts that have the power to award child support also have the power to modify it whenever circumstances have changed materially. Clutter, supra ; Sweeney supra . A majority of this court has held that a disparity from the published guidelines for setting support has not eliminated the need for a material change in circumstances to authorize a court to adjust support. Clutter, supra ; State ex rel. Younger v. Bryant, 465 N.W.2d 155 (N.D.1991). [3] However, a finding of significantly changed income for the obligor may be material enough to allow adjustment of child support. Clutter, supra . At the time of the 1986 paternity action, Bradley admitted that his monthly income for the purposes of determining an appropriate child support amount was $1,190. In response to Karen's 1991 action for modification of child support, Bradley admitted that his monthly take-home pay was $1,700. If, at the trial level, Bradley objected to this amount being used to determine child support, there is no evidence of it in the record. There is nothing in his brief in response to Karen's motion to amend that would give the trial court a different indication of Bradley's available income, nor do we have the hearing transcript before us to determine if Bradley contested this amount. In his Brief For Appellant to our Court, Bradley contends that deductions exist which would decrease his monthly net income to $1,640. He makes the assertion that deductions are available which the trial court did not consider; however, he does not provide us a breakdown of what these deductions are or provide a basis for which we could determine them for ourselves. As Bradley has the burden of proof in this matter, a simple assertion of error or possibility of a different outcome without an explanation or justification of the assertion will not be convincing. Bradley has failed to leave us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made with respect to the computation of his net income. Bradley also contends the guidelines should be modified to take into consideration unordered child support obligations in that they discriminate against obligors who have a child for which support is not ordered by the court. Since the 1986 paternity action, Bradley has married and had a child; thereby, Bradley asserts that he should be allowed a deduction from income based on the fact that he is supporting that child. Bradley asserts that Bergman v. Bergman, 486 N.W.2d 243 (N.D.1992) is applicable to his case. In Bergman, we questioned the application of the child support guidelines to an obligor who was ordered to provide child support to two separate households other than his own, and held that the guidelines do not provide a presumptively correct amount of support in these cases. We gave trial courts instructions that the support obligations presumably exceeded the guidelines in these instances and the trial courts should factor into its equation the principle that proportionately less funds are required for each succeeding child in a single household. We specifically limited our inquiry to instances where an obligor had more than one ordered child support obligation and all children were before the court. We were careful not to imply a change in law or to imply that the Bergman rationale would be applicable to other instances like Bradley's by specifically stating that child support guidelines do not provide adequate guidance when multiple families appear simultaneously before the trial court. Id. at 247 [emphasis added]. Bergman is not applicable to this case. We find the answer to the question in this case in the child support guidelines. Section 75-02-04.1-02(3), NDAC, states that [n]et income received by an obligor from all sources must be considered in the determination of available money for child supportit allows for no deductions based upon unordered child support. Section 75-02-04.1-02(1), NDAC, states that [c]alculations of child support obligations provided for under this chapter consider and assume that one parent acts as a primary caregiver and the other parent contributes a payment of child support to the child's care. [Emphasis added]. By inference, the guidelines do not envision deductions made from the obligor's income for unordered child support. Our child support statutes create a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support which would result from the application of the child support guidelines is the correct amount of child support. NDCC § 14-09-09.7(3). It is presumed that a noncustodial parent owes the specified amount of support to the child. Our review of a trial court's determination regarding child support is governed by Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. We will not set aside a trial court's determination unless, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Sweeney, supra . We conclude that the court did not err in modifying the child support award and we affirm the judgment as amended. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and MESCHKE, LEVINE and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.