Opinion ID: 2598842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: January and February

Text: For January and February the court ruled: [T]he parties have a duty to support all three minor children, not just Jamie. Neither parent had custody of Justin or Jarrod during this time period. A parent is obligated to provide support for his or her children. If neither party had custody of Justin or [Jarrod], they may owe support to a third party who provided support to the children. Because neither party had physical custody of Justin and Jarrod, this court will calculate support for this period based on a 50/50 shared custody agreement for all three children. Edward's support obligation for all three children is $365.10 less $18.75 health credit, for a total support obligation of $346.35. [Footnotes omitted.] Edward argues that basing support on a 50/50 shared custody arrangement for all three boys is in contravention of Civil Rule 90.3(i)(2) which provides: If, in addition to a support obligation to a third party, one or both parents retain primary or shared physical custody of at least one of their children, the support obligation between the parents is calculated pursuant to the other paragraphs of this rule, without consideration of the third party custodian or any children in the custody of the third party custodian, except that the percentage in 90.3(a)(2) must be adjusted pro rata for the number of children in the primary custody of a parent, or shared custody of the parents, compared to the total number of children. After that calculation is completed, any support owed may be offset with support owed to a third party custodian under the preceding subparagraph in order to minimize transactions. The Commentary to Rule 90.3 Section XI.B reiterates the above language and gives guidance as to how to calculate support as between the parents in cases where a child is in the custody of a third party. [1] The superior court's assumptions and thus its calculations are not consistent with Rule 90.3(i)(2). [2] The rule directs the court to calculate the support obligation without consideration of the third party custodian or any children in the custody of the third party custodian.  [3] Here the court calculated support based on shared custody of all three children. Instead, the court should have used the shared custody method set out in Rule 90.3(b) for one child as modified by Rule 90.3(i)(2). The adjusted pro rata percentage called for in Rule 90.3(i)(2) would be 11%, 33% for three children under (a)(2)(C) multiplied by one representing the child in shared custody divided by three representing the total number of children. The result is that for these two months Edward owes Winona $121.70 per month for the support of Jamie, [4] minus the health insurance deduction of $18.75 per Rule 90.3(d)(1). The maternal grandparents are entitled to support for the older boys for these months from both Edward and Winona.