Opinion ID: 1136050
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the magistrate erred in applying the i.c.s.g. section 10(c) factors to the evidence presented

Text: The decision to modify a child support order involves a two-step process, (1) whether there has been a substantial change of circumstances, and (2) determining the amount of the modification. Ireland, 123 Idaho at 960, 855 P.2d at 45. The amount of the modification is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Levin v. Levin, 122 Idaho 583, 588, 836 P.2d 529, 534 (1992). The amount of child support is to be calculated based upon the factors set forth in I.C. Section 32-706 and the I.C.S.G. I.C. Section 32-706A(C). The amount of the award which would result from the application of the Guidelines is rebuttably presumed to be the appropriate amount of child support to be awarded. I.C. Section 32-706A(C). In 1980, I.C. Section 32-706 was enacted. Idaho Code Section 32-706 provides a nonexclusive set of factors for determining the amount of child support each parent owes. In 1989, I.C. Section 32-706A was added to recognize and give presumptive effect to the I.C.S.G. Idaho Code Section 32-706A states that the I.C.S.G. are to be advisory, as an aid for the litigants and the courts to evaluate the needs of the children and the resources of the parents in determining the appropriate level of child support. I.C. Section 32-706A(A). Section 10(c) of the I.C.S.G. provides that the Guidelines Income schedules, contained in Section 10(a) of the I.C.S.G., are not a limitation on the award of child support for combined Guidelines Incomes above $70,000. To calculate support for combined Guidelines Incomes above $70,000, Section 10(c) instructs a two-part analysis: (1) a court should determine the amount of support based on the first $70,000 of Guidelines Income, pursuant to the tables in Section 10(a); and (2) a court should determine any additional support for Guidelines Income above $70,000, by considering all relevant factors, which may include, (a) the financial resources of the child; (b) the financial resources, needs, and obligations of the parents; (c) the standard of living the child enjoyed during the marriage; (d) the physical and emotional condition and needs of the child, including educational needs; (e) any special impairment, limitation, or disability of the child and any need for special education; (f) any special ability or talent of the child and the cost of educating or training that ability or talent; and (g) any special living conditions that create additional costs for the child. I.C.S.G. Section 10(c). There are no Idaho appellate cases interpreting the factors set forth in Section 10(c) of the I.C.S.G., for purposes of awarding child support above the $70,000 figure. The formula-driven Guidelines set forth in Section 10(a) of the I.C.S.G. are rebuttably presumed to establish the correct amount of child support. I.C. Section 32-706A. These formula-driven support amounts are premised upon three general assumptions: (1) the costs of rearing a child are reasonably related to family income, and the proportion of family income allocated to child support remains relatively constant in relation to total household expenditures at all income levels; (2) in relation to gross income, there is a gradual decline in the proportion of family income allocated to child support, as income increases; and (3) the Guidelines amount is the appropriate average amount of support during the minority of the child at a given parental income, so that age-specific expenses do not alter the Guidelines amount. I.C.S.G. Section 3. Carla argues on appeal that the magistrate erred by applying a cap rather than an evidence-driven standard in determining whether any additional support above the $70,000 figure should have been awarded. We agree. The magistrate's September 8, 1994 memorandum decision, incorrectly referenced the combined guidelines income of $70,000 as a cap figure. The magistrate noted that, [i]t is agreed by all parties and this Court that the setting of child support over the cap of the Idaho Child Support Guidelines is a case of first impression in the State of Idaho. (R., p. 155 (emphasis added).) The magistrate found that while this Court has not given lower courts much guidance in whether child support should be awarded over the cap figure, (R., p. 155), the Court has indicated that a court must consider all relevant factors. The magistrate concluded those factors may include the seven factors enumerated in Section 10(c) of I.C.S.G. (R., p. 155.) The magistrate erred in applying the factors listed in Section 10(c) of the I.C.S.G. to the evidence presented in this case. The magistrate improperly used the term cap throughout his decision. The magistrate first determined the rebuttably presumed amount of support, and correctly increased Stephen's child support payment from $750 per month to $834.25 per month, the maximum amount of support for two children, under Section 10(a) of the I.C.S.G. The magistrate thereafter erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Carla, requiring Carla to specifically prove the factors set forth in Section 10(c) of the I.C.S.G. The magistrate should have analyzed the income of the parties and the children's requirements in light of the factors set forth in Section 10(c) of the I.C.S.G and awarded such additional child support as was determined in this evaluation. We reverse and remand the magistrate's determination of support above the $70,000 figure.