Opinion ID: 1690481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: children's needs

Text: The administrative guidelines for child support consider the subsistence needs, work expenses, and daily living expenses of the obligor, ... and ... the income of the obligee.... NDAC 75-02-04.1-09. [9] The guidelines do not consider any increased needs of the children, nor educational costs voluntarily incurred at private schools, nor increased needs of children with handicapping conditions or chronic illness. NDAC 75-02-04.1-09(2), at note 8. Yet, the primary purpose of child support must be the needs of the child. The child support guideline schedule amount is rebuttedly presumed to be the correct amount.... NDAC 75-02-04.1-13. [10] This presumption is rebutted if the evidence establishes other factors of undue hardship to the obligor or a child for whom support is sought. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 481 N.W.2d 234 (N.D.1992). The evidence here establishes that Trevor and Khara have increased needs. Trevor and Khara each have Attention Deficit Disorder, a handicapping condition. See note 5. Each child is under a physician's care for this condition. Because of Trevor's condition, Gordon contributes increased educational costs, exceeding $6,000 annually, for Trevor to attend a private school. The referee made specific findings about Khara's disability, medical treatment, and increased needs, but without special education. Detailed evidence about Trevor's disability, treatment, and special educational costs was presented, but there are no specific findings about his increased needs. Despite substantial evidence of factors not considered for Trevor, the referee failed to address and weigh these factors. We conclude that the findings addressing Khara's increased needs, without addressing Trevor's increased needs, are unbalanced and clearly erroneous.