Court Opinion

ID: 9808939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:55:34.25539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:21:43.115348
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 27] The majority says that one parent who is not supporting a child must pay more than $24,000 per year in child support to the other parent who is not supporting the child. I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 28] Currently, the parties’ only minor child does not live with either party. He is severely autistic and lives at the Life Skills and Transition Center in Grafton, and the record reflects that all his expenses, including food, clothing, and lodging, are paid by Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income. These government payments are approximately $22,225 per month to cover the child’s needs. The parents pay none of these expenses. The mother said she spends $200-300 per month for “incidentals.”
[¶ 29] The judicial referee ordered the father to pay child support of $2,053 per month (more than $24,000 per year) to the mother for child support for the child she does not care for. The majority affirms.
[¶ 30] In the context of child, “residential responsibility” is defined as “a parent’s responsibility to provide a home for the child.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-00.1(7). And “primary residential responsibility” is defined as “a parent with more than fifty percent of the residential responsibility.” N.D.C.C. § 14-09-00.1(6). Under the facts of this case, neither parent has actual responsibility to provide a home for the child.
[¶ 31] The majority, like the referee below, looks only at the rules referred to as the “child support guidelines.” But the rules are adopted only to implement the statute, and the statute says:
There is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support that would result from the application of the child support guidelines is the correct amount of child support. The presumption may be rebutted if a preponderance of the evidence in a contested matter establishes, applying criteria established by the child support agency which take into consideration the best interests of the child, that the child support amount established under the guidelines is not the *442correct amount of child support. A written finding or a specific finding on the record must be made if the court determines that the presumption has been rebutted.
N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.7(4) (emphasis added). On the basis of the undisputed facts in this record, where neither parent is in fact supporting the child, the presumption is rebutted.
[¶ 32] Although the statute permits the agency to specify criteria which rebut the guideline amounts, the statutory language does not limit rebuttal to such criteria. The second sentence of subsection 4 quoted above says the presumption “may” be rebutted by agency-designated criteria. The “may” used by the statute is permissive and non-exclusive, as opposed to the limiting phrase “may only,” which the statute does not use. But even if the criteria for rebuttal of the presumption is limited to the contents of the guidelines themselves, the presumption is rebutted.
[¶ 33] The fundamental criteria or premise of the child support guidelines themselves is that they “consider and assume that one parent acts as a primary caregiver and the other parent contributes a payment of child support to the child’s care.” N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-02(1). That is not the case here. Neither parent is serving as the primary caregiver. As the Century Code instructs, “When the reason of a rule ceases so should the rule itself.” N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(1).
[¶ 34] If any interpretation of the statutes or rules is necessary, the Century Code says “[interpretation must be reasonable,” N.D.C.C. § 31-11-05(33), and this Court has repeatedly said statutes must be construed to avoid absurd and ludicrous results. See, e.g., Morton County Social Service Board v. Cramer, 2010 ND 58, ¶ 16, 780 N.W.2d 688; Kappenman v. Klipfel, 2009 ND 89, ¶ 21, 765 N.W.2d 716; Selzler v. Selzler, 2001 ND 138, ¶ 10, 631 N.W.2d 564. It is absurd to say that one parent who is not supporting a child is required to pay child support to the other parent who is not supporting the child.
[¶ 35] The presumption is rebutted. I would reverse.
m 36] DALE SANDSTROM