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

Heading: Child SupportJanuary-May 2000

Text: The most factually complicated issue concerns the award of child support for five months in the year 2000. The superior court ordered Edward to pay Winona monthly support for January and February of $346.35. For March through May Winona was ordered to pay Edward monthly support of $86.82. For the reasons that follow we conclude that Edward owes Winona $121.70 for January and February, and Winona owes Edward $80.03 for March and April, and $403.46 for May. When the parties separated in January 2000 the two older boys, Justin and Jarrod, were living with their maternal grandparents in Washington. From January through April physical custody of Jamie was split equally between the parties. In early May Winona moved to Washington and Jamie stayed with Edward in Alaska. From March through May Justin stayed with Edward.
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.
The trial court calculated child support for the months of March, April and May as if the parents had shared custody of both Jarrod and Jameson and Edward [had] primary custody of Justin. Edward argues that court's calculation was erroneous for each of the following three reasons:
2. With regard to March and April, rather than considering Justin and Jamie separately, the former under primary custody guidelines (Rule 90.3(a)), the latter under shared custody guidelines (Rule 90.3(b)), the court should have considered them as one unit and averaged the amount of time they spent with each parent to determine which custody guideline to use. Because Justin was with Edward 100% of the time and Jamie was with Edward 50% of the time, this would result in Edward having both children 75% of the time and would, so Edward argues, require the use of Rule 90.3(a). 3. With regard to May, Jamie was in the primary physical custody of Edward, and the court erred in using the shared physical custody formula. Edward's first point is correct for the reasons described above. The grandparents are entitled to support for Jarrod from each parent. Edward's second point is not correct. The trial court correctly decided that Jamie and Justin presented a hybrid custody situationJamie in shared custody and Justin in sole custodythat should be governed by the formula we used in Turinsky v. Long. [5] Under that formula, primary and shared custody support amounts are offset using percentages that are prorated for the total number of children. [6] Winona's primary support obligation for Justin would be $201.73 per month ($22,007 × .33 × 1/3 × 1/12) while Edward's support obligation for Jamie as calculated above is $121.70. Offsetting these figures, Winona owes Edward monthly support of $80.03 for March and April. Edward's third point is clearly correct. Jamie was in the sole physical custody of Edward for May. For May, Edward was the primary custodian of Justin and Jamie. Winona owes him $403.46 for this month (22,007 × .33 × 2/3 × 1/12).