Opinion ID: 2585328
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Should Have Considered Bill's Efforts to Provide for His New Family as a Defense to an Increase in His Support Obligation.

Text: In its November 1999 order for modification of child support, the superior court required Bill to pay $919 per month for Valerie's child support, up from $752.73 in 1997. This increased payment reflected CSED's more recent review of Bill's financial information pursuant to Rule 90.3. [14] Bill argues that he is entitled to a variance from the Rule 90.3 calculation because his increase in income is directly attributable to extra overtime worked for the sole purpose of providing for his stepchildren's special medical and educational needs. He contends that this additional income should not be considered in determining his support obligation for Valerie. The commentary to Rule 90.3 provides that the interests of the subsequent family may be taken into account as a defense to a modification action where an obligor proves he or she has ... increased his or her income specifically to better provide for a subsequent family. [15] But such a defense should not be allowed to the extent that the increase in income is limited to ordinary salary increases, or to the extent that the increase in income is not expressly motivated by an attempt to care for the subsequent family. [16] Bill argued that his increased income is due to additional overtime for which he has volunteered only so he can provide for the needs of his stepchildren. He stated in his affidavit, [m]y increase in income is because I volunteer for all the overtime I can.... The reason for my volunteering for extra overtime is because my new family needs the money. We conclude that the superior court should have considered Bill's defense to the upward modification when it determined whether to increase his support obligation. [17] Because the court failed to do so, we remand for a determination of whether Bill increased his income for the express purpose of providing for his new family, and whether CSED's request for an increase should be denied on that basis. In determining whether the interests of Bill's subsequent family should defeat the motion to increase child support, the superior court should also consider the income, including the potential income, of both parents of Bill's stepchildren, including that of the stepchildren's biological father. [18]
Bill also argued that the increased needs of his new family justified a reduction of the support obligation initially established in 1997. Although the commentary to Rule 90.3 provides that Bill's motivation for taking on additional overtime may provide a defense to an upward modification based on the increased income resulting from that overtime, it does not provide a basis for a reduction in child support. Under Rule 90.3, the court may only vary the support obligation if the obligor parent establishes first, that unusual circumstances exist and, second, that these unusual circumstances make application of the usual formula unjust. [19] In addition, Rule 90.3 only allows a support variance when the obligor parent demonstrates good cause upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result if the support award were not varied. [20] A trial court may deny a motion to modify child support without an evidentiary hearing if the moving party does not allege facts that would establish a prima facie case for modification. [21] The commentary to Rule 90.3 states that in most instances, a subsequent family will not present good cause to vary the support guidelines: A parent with a support obligation may have other children living with him or her who were born or adopted after the support obligation arose. The existence of such subsequent children, even if the obligor has a legal obligation to support these children, will not generally constitute good cause to vary the guidelines. However, the circumstances of a particular case involving subsequent children might constitute unusual circumstances justifying variation of support. The court should reduce child support if the failure to do so would cause substantial hardship to the subsequent children. [22] Thus, the obligor parent must show that unusual circumstances exist such that the court's failure to vary the support obligation would result in substantial hardship or manifest injustice. This is true even if the obligor parent has a legal obligation to support the subsequent children. Although Bill maintained that his stepchildren suffer from health problems including asthma, Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and poor teeth, he has not demonstrated that failure to reduce his support obligation would result in substantial hardship. Instead, he merely asserted in his affidavit that a reduction in my support for Valerie would help me care for my new family. [23] But Rule 90.3 requires more than such an assertion, for simply supporting a new family will not generally constitute good cause to vary the guidelines. [24] Bill failed to establish a prima facie case for a downward modification of his support obligation, and the superior court therefore did not err in denying his request for a hearing. [25]