Opinion ID: 2608692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mother's Remarriage.

Text: The trial court stated in support of the reduction of Lekvold's child support obligations that there has been a substantial and favorable change in the mother's financial circumstances since her remarriage and the lifestyle of the children has improved considerably as a result. Since Mrs. Henderson was not even employed at the time of the hearing, the only other financial change in her circumstances indicated in the record was whatever rights she may have in Wyoming to her new husband's earnings. Mrs. Henderson testified that their lifestyle had improved. But we inquire as to what extent this changed circumstance justifies a reduction of Lekvold's child support. This Court has held that the remarriage of either or both of the parties may have some effect upon the financial resources available to support and maintain the children and that this factor is one of many to be taken into consideration in modifying a child support award. See Spingola, supra . There are not hard and fast rules in this area of the law. See Annot., 89 A.L.R.2d 106 (1963). The totality of the circumstances need to be considered. Much of Lekvold's testimony at the hearing went to the allegedly frivolous nature of some of Mrs. Henderson's expenditures. However, there is no clear evidence as to the source of this money, whether it came from the separate funds of her spouse or from her own separate resources. There were no findings by the trial court. The evidence is undisputed that, at the time of the hearing, the five-person Henderson household had an income of $21,000. Lekvold was living by himself and also making $21,000. Clearly, Mrs. Henderson's new husband has no duty to support the parties' minor children. If the trial court's reduction of Lekvold's child support obligations were to stand, then Mrs. Henderson's new husband would have to carry some of the burden of the children's support since $100 per month for children ages eleven and fifteen does not go very far in this day of high prices. In effect, the trial court has shifted the duty of support from the children's father to their step-father. We hold the trial court erred in doing so.