Opinion ID: 2507848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Child support statute

Text: NRS 125B.070, Nevada's child support statute, sets forth a support schedule based upon a parent's gross monthly income. NRS 125B.070(1)(a) defines gross monthly income as the total amount of income received each month from any source of a person who is not self-employed or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person, after deduction of all legitimate business expenses, but without deduction for personal income taxes, contributions for retirement benefits, contributions to a pension or for any other personal expenses. This court has not addressed the issue of whether, under Nevada's child support statute, social security benefits can be considered gross monthly income for the purpose of calculating a support obligation. Statutory construction is a question of law. [15] When the language of a statute is expressly clear and unambiguous, the apparent intent must be given effect, as there is no room for construction. [16] If, however, a statutory provision is ambiguous, then this court should attempt to follow the Legislature's intent. [17] To ascertain legislative intent, a court may examine the context and spirit of the statute in question, together with the subject matter and policy involved. [18] Statutes also should be interpreted in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended. [19] In addition, a statute should be read as a whole to give meaning to all of its parts. [20]  `No part of a statute should be rendered nugatory, nor any language turned to mere surplusage, if such consequences can properly be avoided.' [21] Statutes with a protective purpose should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the benefits intended to be obtained. [22] Finally, when the Legislature makes a substantial change in a statute's language, it indicates a change in the legislative intent. [23] This court has construed the meaning of gross monthly income in a prior version of NRS 125B.070. In Rodgers v. Rodgers, [24] we considered whether the statutory definition of gross monthly income included a parent's community property interest in a new spouse's earnings. At the time, the statute defined gross monthly income as the total amount of income from any source of a wage-earning employee or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person. [25] We construed gross monthly income to be limited to the parent's income from employment, [26] reasoning that any other interpretation would render the terms wage-earning employee and self-employed person nugatory. The child support statute was revised in 2001, and the term wage-earning employee was replaced with person who is not self-employed. [27] The legislative history fails to reveal why the language was changed; the focus of the Assembly hearings was raising the maximum cap for child support. [28] The substantial change in the statute's language indicates that the Legislature intended to retreat from the Rodgers interpretation of gross monthly income. The new language could indicate a complete shift away from income being limited to employment. Or, since the definition still includes the self-employed language discussed in Rodgers , the change could indicate that income is still tied to employment, but not just to wages. Consequently, the definition of gross monthly income is ambiguous. Our rules of statutory construction yield a conclusion that gross monthly income is no longer limited to income from employment. The statute provides that income received from any source, regardless of whether the parent is not self-employed or is self-employed, should be used to calculate a parent's child support obligation. If given full effect, this any source language means that income is not limited to employment earnings. Additionally, Nevada's public policies, to promote the adequate support of children and to encourage both parents to share the responsibilities of child rearing, [29] are served by including income from all sources in child support calculations. Finally, as the statute has a protective purpose  to maintain the support of children  it should be liberally construed to achieve this purpose. Therefore, we conclude that gross monthly income is not limited to income from employment but may include income from other sources. Given our conclusion, both SSI and SSD qualify as a source of a parent's gross monthly income under NRS 125B.070.