Court Opinion

ID: 9580731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:08:16.998081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:29.186071
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur in the judgment, I think it necessary to point out that we construe and believe the trial court construed the mother’s motion for support and sworn answers on a form questionnaire to be for $200 support per month for the child alone. She, of course, was entitled to no support for herself. Although the form questionnaire *4asks what is required for support “for yourself and child (ren),” her response of $200 obviously relates to the needs of the child alone; she was seeking only child support payments, and she named only the child as the respondent’s dependent. Were her written testimony on the form not so construed, there would be no evidence that the monthly monetary requirement for the child was $200. There would only be evidence that the child’s requirement was some unspecified part of $200, and respondent was already paying $100.
Decided February 6, 1986
Rehearing denied February 24, 1986
Benjamin W. Beazley, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Patricia Downing, Mary Foil Russell, Staff Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.