Opinion ID: 2598842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Child Support in 2001 and Prospectively

Text: Initially in 2001 child custody arrangements were to be governed by a child custody agreement that the parties entered into in November 2000. Under this agreement Edward had primary physical custody of Justin and Jamie and Winona had primary physical custody of Jarrod. But Justin did not live with Edward during 2001; instead, he resided with third parties. The decree of divorce entered on March 1, 2001, incorporated the child custody agreement without mentioning that Justin was no longer residing with Edward. Though the order determining child support of May 2001 recognized that Justin was residing with third parties, it nevertheless calculated child support as if he was residing half the time with each parent. For 2001 and prospectively Edward was ordered to pay Winona $536.25 per month for child support. For the reasons that follow we conclude that under Civil Rule 90.3 he should have been ordered to pay a monthly sum of $164.28. Edward makes three challenges to the 2001 child support. 1. He contends that the trial court should have used his projected 2001 income rather than his actual 2000 income. 2. He contends that the court erred in using the divided custody formula set out in Civil Rule 90.3(b)(6) prior to April 15, 2001, which was the effective date of that subsection. 3. He contends that the court erred in calculating support for Justin as if custody for Justin was a 50/50 shared arrangement. Edward's first argument lacks merit. Determination of adjusted annual income for child support purposes is a question of fact reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. [7] On numerous occasions we have upheld determinations based on past income in preference to more speculative evidence. [8] The trial court did not err in this case in adopting this approach. [9] Edward's second point is likewise without merit. Even though the divided custody rule reflected in Civil Rule 90.3(b)(6) had an effective date of April 15, 2001, [10] the formula on which the rule is based was earlier approved in Bunn v. House . [11] It was not error to use the Bunn v. House formula prior to the effective date of its codification. Edward's third point has two parts. First he argues that because under the November 2000 agreement he was the primary physical custodian of Justin, Winona should have been paying him child support for Justin even though Justin was not actually living with him in 2001. We reject this argument under the authority of Bennett v. Bennett. [12] Edward in this case is positioned like the father in Bennett who had de jure but not de facto custody of the parties' child. [13] Here, as in Bennett, there was no pre-existing child support award. [14] We held in Bennett that the father under these circumstances was not entitled to child support from the mother, stating: Awarding child support to a parent who has relinquished de facto custody and no longer provides any financial support to the child does not further the purposes of the child support rule. [15] The second aspect of Edward's third point is that the trial court ignored Civil Rule 90.3(i)(2) when it calculated child support as if Justin was in a shared custody status. This is well taken. The court should have calculated child support considering Justin to be in third-party custody under Civil Rule 90.3(i)(2). As we have already noted, this subsection directs the court to calculate the support obligation between the parents without considering the children in the custody of third parties, adjusting applicable percentages pro rata for the number of children in the primary custody of a parent ... compared to the total number of children. [16] Following Civil Rule 90.3(i)(2) and adopting the divided custody formula of Bunn v. House used by the trial court and now reflected in Civil Rule 90.3(b)(6) yields monthly support of $164.28 [17] that Edward owes Winona.