Opinion ID: 2085063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Exclusion of the Healthcare Benefit from Gross Income

Text: [¶15] Donald contends that gross income for child support purposes includes payments that reduce personal living expenses. He contends that the court erred by failing to include the value of Lori's employer-provided health insurance benefit in calculating her gross income pursuant to section 2006(5)(E). [¶16] The testimony established that the value of Lori's health insurance benefit from her employer is $573.47 per month. The testimony also established that Donald receives subsidized health care through social security, but there was no evidence of its value other than Donald's testimony that his monthly social security disability benefits included a $97 per month deduction for medical insurance. Consequently, although the court could have added the value of Lori's health insurance to her gross income, the court did not have a corresponding value for Donald to add to his gross income. [¶17] The court specifically found that it would be unjust to include Lori's health benefit in her gross income pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(3)(C), because it would be unfair to increase [Lori's] income for this benefit when [Donald] is receiving the same benefit. Section 2007(3)(C) provides that a court may deviate from the child support guidelines based on [t]he interrelation of the total support obligation established under the support guidelines for child support, the division of property and an award of spousal support made in the same proceeding for which a parental support obligation is being determined. 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(3)(C). Given that both Lori and Donald receive a healthcare benefit, the court's decision to exclude the value of Lori's benefit from her gross income was an appropriate deviation and within the bounds of judicial discretion authorized by section 2007(3). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.