Opinion ID: 1171462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review and background

Text: In a recent case, this court restated the standard of review applicable to appeals from child support modification orders and discussed features of the child support guidelines. Roberts v. Roberts, 816 P.2d 1293 (Wyo.1991). We need not here restate the applicable standard of review; rest assured, we shall apply it. We will, however, again discuss the background and the salient features of the child support guidelines, since the district court's allegedly erroneous application of them is the heart of this appeal. Before the enactment of the child support guidelines legislation, either party to an original divorce decree could seek an upward or downward modification of a child support award under the authority of W.S. 20-2-113 and 116 (1987). [1] A petitioner who seeks child support modification under that authority must prove a substantial change of circumstances in order for the court to order a modification. Nuspl v. Nuspl, 717 P.2d 341, 345 (Wyo.1986). In any given case in which a substantial change of circumstances exists, determination of amounts of child support    invokes consideration of all of the circumstances including: (a) reasonable needs of the children; (b) reasonable contributory ability and responsibility of the father; and (c) reasonable contributory ability and responsibility of the mother. Nuspl, 717 P.2d at 345. In Nuspl, the mother, as the custodial parent, petitioned for an upward modification of child support for the parties' three minor children. The noncustodial father resisted, claiming, among other things, he had remarried and had incurred expenses for his second wife and their two minor children. The parties did not dispute the existence of a substantial change of circumstances. The father, however, asserted the trial court abused its discretion in ordering an upward modification when it failed to consider the father's inability to pay in light of his remarriage and later-born children. Nuspl, 717 P.2d at 345. Responding to that assertion, this court reminded the litigants that in proceedings of this nature, the paramount concern of the court is the child's welfare. Id. Tempering that statement, we acknowledged that a child support question must be decided with consideration of the paying parent's ability to pay, the receiving parent's spending habits, and all other surrounding circumstances. We also cautioned that, [v]oluntary assumption of an additional obligation by remarriage or debt incurrence does not necessarily constrain responsibility to children of the prior marriage. We continued to recognize that, in the final analysis, child support decisions rest largely within the district court's exercise of discretion based upon all of the surrounding circumstances that exist in any particular case. Id. Over the years a growing number of critics have challenged the system which allows child support decisions to be made on the ad hoc exercise of judicial discretion which has led to unacceptably low and comparatively inequitable child support awards. Some of the criticism points out that the American public has a vested interest in the continuing economic viability of the federal public assistance program, Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC). Further, the taxpayers' burden increases whenever noncustodial parents fail to pay or underpay child support for their children who then must receive public assistance. Irwin Garfinkel and Marygold S. Melli, The Use of Normative Standards in Family Law Decisions: Developing Mathematical Standards for Child Support, 24 Family L.Q. 157, 159-62 (1990). Congress responded to the challenge in 1984 through the child support amendments to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. [2] This enactment required the states to develop guidelines in the form of mathematical formulae for use by the courts in setting child support awards and that it be done by October, 1987. Later, Congress required the states to treat those guidelines as rebuttably presumed correct. [3] Heeding the federal call, the Wyoming state legislature enhanced the existing child support enforcement program through the enactment of W.S. 20-6-101 through 401 (Supp.1991). The child support guidelines are part of this legislation and embody the shift from ad hoc judicial discretion to presumptive standards in the establishment of child support awards. [4] These guidelines apply to both AFDC and non-AFDC children. With the enactment of the guidelines, the legislature established a statutorily recognized change of circumstances which courts must deem sufficient to justify the modification of a support order. Under W.S. 20-6-306(a), a party may seek a child support modification based on application of the guidelines. The court applies the child support guidelines to the circumstances of the parents or the child at the time of the review. Further, if the court finds that the support amount would change by twenty percent (20%) or more per month from the amount of the existing order, the court shall consider there to be a change of circumstances sufficient to justify the modification of the support order. W.S. 20-6-306(a). Regardless whether a party claiming a substantial change of circumstances and seeking modification proceeds under the authority of W.S. 20-2-113 and 116 or W.S. 20-6-306(a), the child support guidelines shall be rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be awarded. W.S. 20-6-302(a).