Opinion ID: 2629458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Must Show How It Calculated the Child Support Obligation in the Child Support Order.

Text: Morris complains the superior court incorrectly calculated the amount of child support he owes under Civil Rule 90.3 [28] for four reasons. Although we reject most of Morris's claims, we reverse and remand the child support order for clarification. We first address our reasons for reversing the order and then discuss Morris's other, unavailing claims.
Morris argues the court should have calculated his child support based on an income of $30,000, not $40,000. At the 2007 hearing the court admitted into evidence pay stubs from 2001 to 2007, giving little weight to those from 2001 and 2002 because they preceded the original 2002 child support order. The court explained that the older pay stubs were of limited relevance because the court is not allowed to retroactively modify... child support. The court ordered Morris to fill out a DR-305 form using his 2006 and 2007 pay stubs to determine his average net monthly income, on which the award would be based. Morris's 2007 DR-305 form indicated his gross income amounted to $37,823.50 and his net income to $20,984.72. It did not indicate whether Morris received a permanent fund dividend (PFD) for that year. His June 2006 DR-305 indicated his gross income, including a PFD, was $36,118.45, and his net income was $33,833.40. But neither the order modifying child support nor the record specifies which income figures were used to calculate Morris's obligations. We are unable to determine what income the court used for its calculation. Our attempts to recreate the child support calculationworking backwards from the obligations in the orderwere unsuccessful. We used Morris's 2006 and 2007 incomes, both with and without a PFD. But none of our calculations yielded the amounts listed in the modified child support order. We have held that trial courts must make specific findings under Rule 90.3. [29] Because we cannot determine how the court calculated this child support obligation, we must reverse and remand for clarification. [30]

Morris claims that because his income has been inconsistent, the court should have averaged his income over several years. [31] We disagree. Under Civil Rule 90.3(a), the court must calculate the non-custodial parent's child support based on the parent's adjusted annual income, which means the parent's total income from all sources, minus specified deductions. [32] The commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 states: The determination of future income may be especially difficult when the obligor has had very erratic income in the past. In such a situation, the court may choose to average the obligor's past income over several years. [33] The record contains testimony indicating Morris's income was inconsistent. Horn testified in the August 2002 hearing that because Morris is a carpenter, some months or years he might make really good money and when that job's over ... it could be a very different amount. In the February 2007 hearing Morris testified his wages went up and down depending on the job and overtime. He stated in his motion to modify child support and in his accompanying affidavit that his income had decreased. Based on this record the court could have found his income erratic and could have averaged his past income from 2003 to 2007. But the court has discretion to determine the best indicator of future earnings. Here, the court appears to have focused on Morris's earnings in the most recent fourteen months. [34] This decision was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. [35]
Morris complains the court erred by including A.M., one of the parties' daughters, in the child support order, claiming she was legally emancipated when he filed his motion in June 2006. Horn replies that Morris knew that A.M. was not legally emancipated until December 2006 and that he waived any objection by not raising this issue below. Horn has the better of these arguments. She filed a notice of ineligibility in January 2007, before the child support hearing, stating that A.M. was ineligible for child support effective December 31, 2006. During the hearing, Horn stipulated that she should not receive child support for A.M. as of end of December. Morris did not object to ending the child support obligation for A.M. after December 2006. On appeal, Morris provides no support for his claim that A.M. was legally emancipated before January 1, 2007. The superior court did not err by including A.M. in the child support order, with Morris's obligation for her to extend until December 31, 2006.
Morris contends that [d]espite the fact [he] testified he was employed on a seasonal basis as a carpenter, the court did not calculate his child support under Civil Rule 90.3(c)(5). Horn responds that Morris never requested seasonal payments and has waived the issue. We agree with Horn. Under Civil Rule 90.3(c)(5), if a court finds a non-custodial parent's income is seasonal, the court may order that the annual support amount be paid in unequal monthly payments, with higher payments during the months the parent expects to receive higher income and lower payments in other months. A court should not make such an order unless (a) it finds that the burden of budgeting for periods of unequal income should be placed on the obligee rather than the obligor and (b) the obligee agrees. [36] Morris did not request seasonal payments or characterize his employment as seasonal in his motion, affidavit, DR-305s, or testimony below. The closest he came to raising this issue was his June 2006 motion requesting a decrease in child support. There, Morris stated that his work hours were sporadic, that he had just obtained full-time employment, and that he did not make the income he had made in 2002. But he did not fill out the seasonal income section on either his June 2006 or March 2007 DR-305 forms, and his August 2006 affidavit stated only that he was not making the income he had made in 2002. Further, Morris did not characterize his work as seasonal at the child support and visitation hearing. At that hearing the following exchange occurred between the court and Morris: Q: And ... given that you're a ... carpenter, can I assume that unlike other construction workers, ironworkers, masons, people like that, you can work year-round if there's work available? A: If there's work available andand you can take the job on. The record and testimony show Morris did not claim or testify his work was seasonal in the trial court; thus, he waived this issue. [37]