Opinion ID: 2581730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Other Rulings

Text: Finally, Avis argues on appeal that the superior court failed to follow its own oral findings regarding the nurture and care of the parties' minor children. Avis's pretrial memorandum sought entry of provisions (1) ensuring ongoing support for children over eighteen if they were seeking further education; (2) splitting educational expenses for children attending college; (3) requiring Lindsay to provide health care coverage for the children through his employer until Avis completes her degree program, and to share medical costs while the children attend college; (4) requiring life insurance of $201,000 to secure the child support, and the children's educational obligations; and (5) requiring cost-of-living increases in child support. Avis argues on appeal that although the superior court orally adopted [these] provisions, the written findings and conclusions failed to address these issues. The superior court's written findings and conclusions directly and adequately addressed most of these requests. First, the superior court found that the father has indicated that he intends to help his children with their college education and has indicated that he will use his best efforts to do so. Lindsay's counsel had announced at the hearing that Lindsay planned to help his children when they attend college, and Avis presented no evidence that would justify a conclusion that the court's finding was clearly erroneous. Moreover, Lindsay's best efforts undertaking was too general to create an enforceable obligation to pay half of the expenses. The superior court's finding therefore adequately addresses Avis's first two requests  supporting the children while in school, and sharing higher education expenses  and part of the third request  sharing health expenses for children in college. The other alleged omissions do not require reversal, either. The superior court ordered Lindsay to provide health insurance coverage for the children, and to continue to do so after his eventual discharge from the Air Force. The court ordered that uninsured costs should be borne equally by the parties to a maximum of $5,000, and then allocated pro-rata between the parties according to their respective incomes. It also required Lindsay to maintain life insurance covering his child support obligation. The court did not state a dollar figure, as Avis had requested, but the orders are consistent with the essence of Avis's pretrial memorandum's request: that payment of child support be ensured should Lindsay die. Finally, Avis asked for a cost-of-living adjustment for the child support payments. Alaska Civil Rule 90.3, which governs child support, does not require cost-of-living adjustments. The superior court might have corrected Avis's misunderstanding, but did not err in failing to do so or by declining to impose an obligation not required by Rule 90.3.