Opinion ID: 2617028
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Father's Assets

Text: The last reason the district court gave for deviating from the presumptive child support was that the father had retirement funds from which he could pay child support. [2] The father asserts that the district court should have considered only his monthly net income and not his assets in determining whether or not a sufficient change in circumstances warranted modifying the existing child support order. We note that, because the father's assets were considered in determining the initial child support, his failure to appeal from the child support order makes it improper for him to assert this position now. Goody, 939 P.2d at 733. We, nevertheless, direct the father's attention to Glenn v. Glenn, 848 P.2d 819 (Wyo.1993). In that case, we adopted the rule providing that an incarcerated parent's assets or income may be applied against the child support obligation. 848 P.2d at 822. Although the district court could properly consider the incarcerated parent's assets in determining whether or not a deviation from the presumptive child support was justified, a large deviation on the basis of this factor alone was not warranted in this case. We understand the district court's indifference toward the father, given the despicable crime that he committed. The father, however, is being adequately punished for his crime in the eyes of the law, and the district court should not treat him unfairly in this proceeding for the purpose of punishing him further.