Court Opinion

ID: 9629754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:48:24.737415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:23.234155
License: Public Domain

NEPTUNE, P. J.,
dissenting:
I dissent. The record supports the trial court’s order reducing the child support obligation by only $50 a month, and not disturbing the alimony award.
The mother’s annual income was shown to be $1,141 plus $2,400 alimony. Under the trial court’s order, the mother would also receive $75 a month child support until October 20, 1978 when the daughter, the younger of the children, attains her majority. The support for the older child terminated September 1,1977. It was being paid to the agency that had custody of him, and so the mother did not receive that to help support the family. I conclude that under the trial court’s order the hardship on the father, whose income is $9,300 annually, is less than the existing hardship on the mother.
*764Appellant father’s evidence that he and his present wife have two cars requiring operating expense of $60 a month is extravagant in the circumstance that he says obtains — that neither of them is able to work because his health is so bad that she needs to be at home to care for him. Also, appellant’s expense of $47 a month for insurance for his present wife should not take precedence over meeting his obligation to support his children, but his testimony contends for such priorities.
On the basis of the whole record, I would affirm the order as being properly within the best judgment and sound discretion of the trial court, considering the status and situation of the parties. Walsh v. Walsh, Okl., 460 P.2d 122 (1969).