Court Opinion

ID: 9702632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:19:47.523344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.073768
License: Public Domain

*475SACKETT, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur specially.
Appellant Marty is the mother of Jesse, from her marriage to appellee Scott, and the mother of Brack, the son of her current husband.
Jesse is in Scott’s custody and the trial court ordered Marty to pay minimal child support for Jesse to Scott in the amount of $144.75 per month.
Marty contends she owes no financial support to Jesse because she and her current husband decided she should stay at home and care for Brack, her second son. The majority has relieved her of the ordered financial contribution, finding that because they respect her decision to remain at home they will not consider her earning capacity in applying the guidelines.
Like the majority, I too respect Marty’s decision to stay at home to care for her second child. However, she is providing neither custodial care nor financial support to her first child.
I agree Marty should not be ordered to pay support for Jesse because she was not ordered to pay support originally, and Scott did not meet his burden of showing change of circumstances.
I have concern that the majority opinion will be interpreted as allowing a noncustodial parent (father or mother) to be relieved of financial support to a child of a first marriage if the parent elected to remain at home to care for a child of the second marriage.