Opinion ID: 1167551
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial court's award of child support.

Text: Robert objects to the trial court's award to Margaret of $1,000 per child per month for child support. Additionally, Robert was ordered to pay 100% of the children's medical and dental expenses. [8] In awarding child support, the trial court stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 7. The children have enjoyed a standard of living commensurate with their father's earnings. Defendant is financially able to pay and should pay the amount of $1,000 per month per child for a total of $3,000 per month as child support for the support and maintenance of the three minor children of the parties. These child support payments should be paid through the Child Support Enforcement Agency in Anchorage, Alaska on the first day of each month beginning May 1, 1987. 8. Defendant is financially able to pay and should pay all medical, surgical, hospital, dental and orthodontic expenses of the minor children. Margaret testified that without any fluff each child's expenses were $833 per month. This figure only covered expenses; it did not allow for trips or vacations. Margaret arrived at this figure by taking monthly expenses for herself and the three children and dividing by four and multiplying by three. Margaret asked that child support be set at $1,000 per child per month to allow her to provide the children with extracurricular enjoyment. She presented no evidence to support an amount above $833 per child per month. Robert testified that the expenses were $515 per child. His figures were arrived at by examining the monthly expenditures and attempting to filter out what were actually Margaret's expenses. He argues that he is shouldering the total out-of-pocket expenses of the children, and thus the award is contrary to the decisions of this court. Child support awards are within the broad discretion of the trial court. Pattee v. Pattee, 744 P.2d 658, 662 (Alaska 1987). They are not to be set aside unless the trial court has abused its discretion, i.e., unless based on the record as a whole this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Hunt v. Hunt, 698 P.2d 1168, 1172 (Alaska 1985). Awards of child support are to be based on the total cost of supporting the children and the relative financial abilities of both parents. Pattee, 744 P.2d at 662; Hunt, 698 P.2d at 1172. The first step is to assess the reasonable needs of the children, including their station in life. Cf. Hunt, 698 P.2d at 1173. Second, the trial court is to assess the relative financial ability of the parents to meet the children's needs. Id. Third, the court determines whether the relative financial abilities justify placing a greater burden on one parent and a lesser burden on the other. Id. at 1172. Applying the foregoing analysis to this case, a review of the record as a whole leads us to a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Robert was ordered to pay 100% of the child's out-of-pocket expenses based solely on his financial ability to pay. No mention was made of Margaret's ability to share in meeting the children's needs. [9] Child support is to be equitably assessed based on both parents' ability to meet the reasonable needs of the children. See Hunt, 698 P.2d at 1172-73. Margaret concedes that she can expect substantial investment income from the property. Although this is not as great as Robert's income, it does not justify placing the entire burden for out-of-pocket expenses on him. He may have to carry a greater burden, but not the total burden. [10] Hunt, 698 P.2d at 1172. Additionally, Robert was ordered to pay the full medical and dental expenses of the children. The trial court failed to properly determine the ability of both parents to provide for the reasonable needs of the children. Thus, the award of child support must be remanded for redetermination. The trial court also failed to properly assess the children's reasonable needs. Instead, it fixed the level of support at $1,000 per child per month without evidence to support a figure greater than $833 per child per month. [11] On remand we direct the trial court to determine the proper child support level under the guidelines established in Civil Rule 90.3. Although this case arose before the effective date of Civil Rule 90.3, the legislature has made it clear that pre-Civil Rule 90.3 child support awards are subject to redetermination under Civil Rule 90.3. See AS 25.24.170(b). By applying the Civil Rule 90.3 guidelines on remand, the trial court will avoid an almost certain motion to modify any award made under pre-Civil Rule 90.3 guidelines.