Court Opinion

ID: 9514716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:51:23.235708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:20.381568
License: Public Domain

[¶ 27.]
MILLER, Chief Justice,
(concurring with Justice Gilbertson as to Issue 1 and with Justice Konenkamp as to Issue 2).
[¶ 28.] I join Justice Konenkamp’s holding on Issue 2 and also agree with Justice Gilbertson’s opinion on Issue 1, that the trial court erred in calculating the abatement of father’s child support.
[¶ 29.] The 1997 Report of the SD Commission on Child Support, which was relied upon by the Legislature in revising many of the child support laws during that year’s session, provides valuable insight on SDCL 25-7-6.14, the abatement statute. The Legislature adopted verbatim the Commission’s proposal for that statute.
[¶ 30.] The report reveals that the Commission specifically considered and rejected an abatement that was based upon the number of days actually spent with the children, and instead opted for an abatement of the monthly support obligation:
A few states have attempted to use an abatement sliding scale based upon the number of days of visitation allowed. However, this approach is a relatively new concept and it lacks economic justification in every case. It can also lead to parental disputes over days of visitation for financial reasons alone. In view of these concerns, the Commission determined not to recommend a daily abatement or sliding scale approach.
Report of the SD Comm’n on Child Support (SD Comm’n on Child Support), Jan. 1997, at 20. In another area of the report, the Commission recommended that “the amount of the abatement be limited to between 38% and 66% of the monthly support obligation.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
[¶ 31.] Despite the Commission’s apparent rejection of a daily abatement calculation, it then provided the following illustration of the abatement calculation:
The appropriate abatement is a pro rata share of the monthly support obligation. For example, assume that the support obligation is $100 per month, the court has ordered a 66% reduction for abatement, and visitation is exercised for fifteen days in a month. The obligor *482would be required to pay $67.00 in child support. [$100 x ½ month x 66% = $33 abatement. Support due is $100 less $33 abatement = $67.00 obligation].
Id. at 21 (footnote omitted). Obviously, this illustration factors in the number of days of visitation actually exercised, in stark contradiction to the Commission’s earlier rejection of such an abatement calculation.
[¶ 32.] Notwithstanding its seemingly contradictory illustration, the Commission ultimately recommended, and the Legislature adopted, the following language for the abatement statute:
Unless the parties otherwise agree and the agreement is approved by the court, the court may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, order an abatement of not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent of the child support ...
SDCL 25-7-6.14 (emphasis added). Considering the “actual days” discussion contained in the report, the statute is noticeably silent about whether actual days of visitation should be factored into the calculation.
[¶ 33.] It is unclear why the Commission offered the seemingly contradictory illustration; regardless, such illustration is insufficient to cast doubt on the clear language of the statute. I am persuaded that the proper abatement calculation should not include the number of days actually spent with the children. One must assume the Legislature read the report before amending the statute, and that it, too, rejected a calculation based upon actual days spent with the children.