Opinion ID: 2629458
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court must show how it calculated the child support obligation.

Text: Morris argues the court should have calculated his child support based on an income of $30,000, not $40,000. At the 2007 hearing the court admitted into evidence pay stubs from 2001 to 2007, giving little weight to those from 2001 and 2002 because they preceded the original 2002 child support order. The court explained that the older pay stubs were of limited relevance because the court is not allowed to retroactively modify... child support. The court ordered Morris to fill out a DR-305 form using his 2006 and 2007 pay stubs to determine his average net monthly income, on which the award would be based. Morris's 2007 DR-305 form indicated his gross income amounted to $37,823.50 and his net income to $20,984.72. It did not indicate whether Morris received a permanent fund dividend (PFD) for that year. His June 2006 DR-305 indicated his gross income, including a PFD, was $36,118.45, and his net income was $33,833.40. But neither the order modifying child support nor the record specifies which income figures were used to calculate Morris's obligations. We are unable to determine what income the court used for its calculation. Our attempts to recreate the child support calculationworking backwards from the obligations in the orderwere unsuccessful. We used Morris's 2006 and 2007 incomes, both with and without a PFD. But none of our calculations yielded the amounts listed in the modified child support order. We have held that trial courts must make specific findings under Rule 90.3. [29] Because we cannot determine how the court calculated this child support obligation, we must reverse and remand for clarification. [30]