Court Opinion

ID: 9857773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:00:34.456958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:40.949934
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I write specially to offer a lifeline to trial courts in their effort to apply the concept of in-kind income.
The expansive language of the guideline defining in-kind income as "the receipt of any valuable right ... including living quarters at no charge or less than the customary charge” (emphasis added) can, if we allow it, impose, in practice, a financial obligation on stepparents that is prohibited by law. See NDCC § 14-09-09. It can also turn on its head the longstanding tradition that child support is paid based upon a balance between the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay and the needs of the child, e.g., Heller v. Heller, 367 N.W.2d 179 (N.D.1985). As I forecasted in Clutter v. McIntosh, 484 N.W.2d 846 (N.D.1992) (Levine, J., concurring), it also raises public policy questions about parents continuing to stay home to care for children if they are to be assessed child support for children not in their custody.
I propose a resolution that may extricate us from the horns of the in-kind-income dilemma. Marriage is now commonly perceived as an economic partnership, in which each partner assumes a variety of duties, acceptable to each other, whether or not conforming to traditional expectations. See Volk v. Volk, 376 N.W.2d 16, 19 (N.D.1985) (Levine, J., concurring and dissenting). Indeed, “working women,” i.e., those employed outside the home, and home-bound child-caring fathers are but some of the permutations that we see in these marital partnerships. So if a married couple, i.e., the partnership, decides that mother will stay home to perform child-care, father-care, home-care, community-care, etc., while father will earn an income from employment outside the home, the integrity of the partnership remains the same. There is no less an economic partnership than when both parents work outside the home. Ordinarily, in a marriage of some duration, equal value is attributable to each party’s contributions to the marital enterprise. See Briese v. Briese, 325 N.W.2d 245 (N.D.1982). The labor of child-care, home-care and all other care thus constitutes “value.” Consequently, as in this case, the mother’s use of the living quarters is not one that is without “charge” or one that is for “less than customary charge.” The mother “pays for” her living quarters with her contribution of labor, as does the father. Whether we view the value of the labor expended in fulfilling household duties as a setoff against the rent or whether we view it as a payment for rent thereby removing *879it from the “no-charge” definition of in-kind income, I am not sure. But I am sure that the guideline must not be interpreted to demean the valuable contribution of labor made by at-home, child caring and/or spouse caring spouses.
In my view, the factfinder should he free to assess, as a matter of law, the value of the at-home spouse’s contribution in an amount at least equal to the value of her or his ordinary living expenses. At least, it should be able to do so, as a matter of fact, based upon the particular circumstances of a case.