Court Opinion

ID: 9849083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:34:31.603749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:00.086588
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(specially concurring).
I agree with the majority that the support be modified to $275 per month.
Where a support action is initiated by the Department of Human Services under Chapter 252A, it is not required to prove the circumstances underlying the prior award, nor any change in circumstances. The uniform act may award more or less support than the dissolution court. See State, Iowa Dept. of Social Services v. Blakeman, 337 N.W.2d 199, 203-204 (Iowa 1983).
To determine the amount of support a spouse may be liable for, we look to section 252A.3(2), which provides in relevant part:
..., he or she may be required to pay for the support of such child or children a fair and reasonable sum according to his or her means ...
Iowa Code § 252A.3(2) (1985).
On our de novo review we must determine the amount of the support award to be made.
The majority opinion does not fairly address the facts in the following particulars. Rita receives $200 per month from her beauty business but also has $200 per month in expenses which the majority failed to consider. Rita receives ADC of $305 per month ($192 of this amount is for the minor child) and $110 per month in food stamps. At the time of the dissolution, the family home with an apartment went to her. From the apartment she receives $2051 per month rent. The payment and other expenses on the home and apartment are $303 monthly. The house was purchased for $21,500 in 1970 and has a cur*250rent encumbrance of $8,000. The equity in the home is substantial, and there is no basis for the majority’s determination that she has minimal assets.
Thomas pays insurance of $22 per week for family coverage for this child and his other 2 children. Two vehicles are eight years old and one is nine years old. Thomas and his wife both work and the family owns no other vehicles. The vehicles are minimum transportation for a family where husband and wife are both employed. The snowmobiles are eleven and thirteen years old. I would give them no consideration in my determination.
Furthermore, the majority cites Page v. Page, 219 N.W.2d 556, 558 (Iowa 1974), as support for the fact that the salary of Thomas’ present wife can be considered in fixing support. Page states with reference to income of second wife:
While she, of course, has no obligation to support defendant’s daughter or his former wife, it is proper to consider defendant’s overall financial condition in fixing the amount he should pay.
Page, N.W.2d at 558. (emphasis added)
Thomas’ second wife has two children of her own2 which the majority seeks to ignore. She has obligations to her own two children (ages six and twelve) and seeks outside employment. To say that her salary can be considered and totally ignore her obligation to the two children in the home is without merit.
HAYDEN, J., joins this special concurrence.

. She pays utilities of $200 per month for herself and the apartment.

. Thomas is the natural father of one and the father by adoption of the second.