Opinion ID: 2585328
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bill properly raised a defense to the upward support modification.

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]