Opinion ID: 2584183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: It Was Error To Set Brooke's Support Obligation at Fifty Dollars per Month.

Text: In his cross appeal Jason argues that the superior court's support award cannot stand because the court failed to make any factual findings regarding Brooke's income and therefore lacked any evidentiary basis for the fifty dollar per month figure. Jason further argues that the fifty dollar figure was not justified by Civil Rule 90.3(c)(1), which allows for child support awards to be varied for good cause where manifest injustice would otherwise result. Civil Rule 90.3(a) [53] sets out guidelines for calculating child support awards where one parent has been awarded primary physical custody. Where custody involves only one child, the support amount is to be set at twenty percent of the non-custodial parent's adjusted income. [54] Courts may deviate from the percentages established by Civil Rule 90.3(a)(2) in limited circumstances, such as where there is good cause upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result if the support award were not varied. [55] As with any other type of decision, a child support award must be supported by findings that are sufficiently detailed and explicit to give an appellate court a clear understanding of the ground on which the trial court reached its decision. [56] Here, the only evidence of Brooke's income was testimony from Brooke regarding her earnings from her job as a cocktail waitress. However, the court specifically rejected the income figure that Brooke proposed, stating that Brooke was being unrealistically optimistic with her earnings estimate in order to present herself to the court in a favorable light for custodial purposes. Aside from this discussion, there was no documentation of or findings relating to Brooke's earnings. [57] Specifically, the court did not make any findings as to Brooke's actual income. [58] Because the record falls short of providing findings that give us a clear understanding of the ground on which the trial court reached its decision regarding Brooke's child support obligations, [59] we are compelled to reverse the order requiring Brooke to pay the minimum fifty dollars each month in child support. We remand to the superior court for a determination of Brooke's child support obligations in accordance with this opinion.