Opinion ID: 2594757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It Was Error to Grant a Retroactive Child Support Award to Albert for the Year He Had De Jure Physical Custody of Alec but Rita Had De Facto Physical Custody.

Text: Although Rita is barred from receiving child support for the time before she moved for de jure custody, it was nonetheless error for the court to retroactively grant Albert child support for that same time period. The commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 cautions courts to consider all relevant factors when retroactively establishing child support awards for a time period where no order currently exists. [16] Child support awards, by their very definition, are intended to benefit the child, not provide a windfall to a parent. [17] 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. [18] Here, Albert ceased to provide any financial support for Alec after Alec left his custody in July 1997. Rita provided the sole support for Alec during the time that she had de facto custody. Given that the trial court was aware of these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to retroactively award Albert child support for this time period. [19]
Child support awards should be based on custody orders. If parents do not follow the custody order, they bear the burden of notifying the court of the change and applying for the appropriate modifications. [20] Because Rita did not move to modify the custody order until a year after Alec came to live with her, she is barred from receiving child care reimbursement for that year. However, Rita should not have to pay child support to Albert for the time when he no longer had de facto physical custody of Alec and she was providing sole financial support for Alec's welfare. We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's denial of Rita's reimbursement claim but REVERSE the superior court's retroactive award of child support to Albert for the time that Albert had de jure custody but Rita had de facto custody.