Opinion ID: 6496572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Child Support – Evidentiary Basis

Text: [¶26] Mother argues the court abused its discretion by failing to comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308, which requires the district court to obtain sufficient financial information from each party in the form of a financial affidavit and/or testimony before determining their income and calculating child support, see infra ¶ 29. This case presents a conundrum because Mother, the non-defaulting party, got the precise child support relief she requested and never objected to the court’s failure to comply with § 20-2-308. After reviewing the record in light of the applicable child support statutes and our precedent, we conclude that the court abused its discretion by calculating child support without having a sufficient evidentiary basis to determine Father’s income even though Mother received the relief she requested and failed to object. [¶27] “Child support determinations are left to the court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse.” Snowden v. Jaure, 2021 WY 103, ¶ 11, 495 P.3d 882, 884 (Wyo. 2021) (citation omitted). Notably, however, the court’s discretion is necessarily “guided by the applicable statutory provisions.” Johnson, ¶ 33, 458 P.3d at 38 (citation omitted). 6 [¶28] The Child Support Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-2-301 through -316, governs child support. Section 20-2-308(a) unequivocally states: “No order establishing or modifying a child support obligation shall be entered unless financial affidavits on a form approved by the Wyoming supreme court which fully discloses the financial status of the parties have been filed, or the court has held a hearing and testimony has been received.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308(a) (LexisNexis 2021). Subsection (b) addresses the documentation required to support a financial affidavit: Financial affidavits of the parties shall be supported with documentation of both current and past earnings. Suitable documentation of current earnings includes but is not limited to pay stubs, employer statements, or receipts and expenses if self-employed. Documentation of current earnings shall be supplemented with copies of the most recent tax return to provide verification of earnings over a longer period. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308(b). [¶29] We have described § 20-2-308’s requirements as mandatory and explained that the statute “requires the district court to ensure the parties provide sufficient financial information, in the form of proper financial affidavits and/or trial evidence, before it makes a child support determination.” Lemus v. Martinez, 2019 WY 52, ¶¶ 21, 26, 441 P.3d 831, 836, 837 (Wyo. 2019) (citations omitted); see also JAG v. State, Dep’t of Fam. Servs., Div. of Pub. Assistance & Soc. Servs., 2002 WY 158, ¶ 17, 56 P.3d 1016, 1021 (Wyo. 2002) (“Wyoming statutes require that an evidentiary record be made in the course of establishing child support[.]” (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-308)); Peak v. Peak, 2016 WY 109, ¶ 9, 383 P.3d 1084, 1088 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that in default divorce proceedings “the district court must obtain an evidentiary basis for its findings regarding property distribution, child custody and visitation, and child support” (citations omitted)). 5 [¶30] In Noonan, we addressed child support in default situations: 5 The statutory requirements may be waived in certain circumstances not present here. See, e.g., Long v. Long, 2018 WY 26, ¶¶ 28–30, 413 P.3d 117, 126–27 (Wyo. 2018) (rejecting husband’s complaint about the district court’s failure to comply with § 20-2-308 where he disregarded his statutory obligation to provide a financial affidavit, the parties agreed to the child support amount he would pay, and the court had husband and wife’s 2013 and 2014 federal income tax returns showing husband’s income during those years); Verheydt v. Verheydt, 2013 WY 25, ¶¶ 7–15, 34, 295 P.3d 1245, 1247–49, 1253 (Wyo. 2013) (concluding husband waived any objection to the district court’s failure to comply with § 20-2-308 where he did not file a financial affidavit but the parties reached a settlement agreement on most aspects of child support and agreed to have the court resolve the remaining child support issues based on the pleadings and argument). Though Mother overstates the extent to which she insisted the court must comply with § 20-2- 308, any failure on her part in that regard did not relieve the district court of its statutory obligation to ensure that an evidentiary record supported its child support determination. See JAG, ¶ 17, 56 P.3d at 1021; Peak, ¶ 9, 383 P.3d at 1088. 7 While we understand that, in a default situation, it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the financial affidavit of the defaulted party, the obligation remains for the nondefaulting party to file such affidavit, and the obligation remains for the district court to obtain sufficient financial evidence of both parties’ income to make factual determinations, and to comply with the presumptive child support guidelines found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304 (LexisNexis 2005), or to determine whether to deviate from those guidelines, as allowed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-307 (LexisNexis 2005). Noonan, ¶ 8, 122 P.3d at 966 (reversing because “[t]hat did not happen in this case”). 6 [¶31] In Brush v. Davis, 2013 WY 161, 315 P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2013), the district court did precisely what Noonan contemplates in a default situation where both parties attend the default hearing. The father in Brush filed a petition to modify custody and support. Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 315 P.3d at 650, 651. After the mother defaulted, the court held a hearing where both parties appeared without counsel. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 315 P.3d at 651. After the hearing, the district court decided to award Father custody but asked each parent to submit a financial affidavit because their respective incomes were unclear. Id. ¶ 7, 315 P.3d at 651. The father filed a financial affidavit but the mother did not, so the court used her affidavit of indigency to calculate her income. Id. We concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by doing so under the circumstances. Id. ¶ 29, 315 P.3d at 656. [¶32] The district court made no such effort in this case. The record reflects that, even though Father regularly attended hearings and represented himself, the court never asked him to provide a financial affidavit or required him to testify about his income. And Mother did not testify or present any evidence about Father’s income; her counsel made assertions 6 In Lemus, we identified some options that are available to the district court “[i]f a party fails to comply with the statute”: (1) the court may find adequate information to calculate income from evidence provided by the other parties; (2) the court may order the filing of a complete financial affidavit and enforce that order by contempt; and/or (3) the court may award attorney fees to the GAL and opposing side for the costs of obtaining complete financial information. See, e.g., Long v. Long, 2018 WY 26, ¶ 30, 413 P.3d 117, 126–27 (Wyo. 2018) (other evidence established the husband’s income); Walker v. Walker, 2013 WY 132, ¶ 39, 311 P.3d 170, 178 (Wyo. 2013) (courts have authority to enforce their orders through contempt sanctions); W.R.C.P. 37 (sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations). Lemus, ¶ 26 n.6, 441 P.3d at 837 n.6. 8 about his past and current employment as a roofer. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence about Father’s income for the court to calculate child support. 7 Cf. Peak, ¶¶ 1, 4, 22–23, 383 P.3d at 1086, 1087, 1091 (distinguishing Noonan because, though father (the defaulting party) failed to file a financial affidavit, the court held a hearing where it received sufficient evidence about his finances from mother, including pay stubs, financial statements, and federal income tax returns). [¶33] The court should have tried to obtain information about Father’s income directly from him, in the form of a financial affidavit and/or testimony. 8 See Brush, ¶ 7, 315 P.3d at 651. If the court could not obtain financial information from Father it then may have been appropriate to determine his income based on some other evidence. See Lemus, ¶ 26 n.6, 441 P.3d at 837 n.6; Fleet v. Guyette, 2020 WY 78, ¶ 37, 466 P.3d 812, 822–23 (Wyo. 2020) (finding no abuse of discretion where Father failed to submit the required financial affidavit and the court relied on an affidavit from Mother’s attorney who investigated his income); Brush, ¶ 29, 315 P.3d at 656. [¶34] The district court abused its discretion by determining Father’s income without sufficient evidentiary support.