Court Opinion

ID: 9670669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:24:06.795039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.886344
License: Public Domain

SNYDER, J.
{concurring). We again reverse and remand because the trial court failed to sufficiently explain why the maintenance ordered is fair to the noncustodial spouse. While our remand invites the trial court to "revisit its child support award if necessary," I suggest that the failure of the trial court to properly apply the Department of Health and Social *298Services' standards1 in ordering child support is a maintenance-related methodology problem that must also be corrected, and if corrected might assist the trial court in finally putting to rest this somewhat pesky and recurring maintenance issue.
The trial court's methodology disposes of maintenance before ordering child support. When child support is later ordered, it is computed by applying the two children 25% standard to the noncustodial parent's income after deducting maintenance. Wis. Adm. Code § HSS 80.03(1)(B). However, this court has previously said that "[w]hen child support is determined solely by using the standards, maintenance payable to a spouse does not enter the computation." Erath v. Erath, 141 Wis. 2d 948, 955, 417 N.W.2d 407, 410 (Ct. App. 1987). Here, it clearly did.
The use of child support percentage standards are presumptively mandatory. Here, that means that the trial court must order Charles to pay 25% of his gross income of $42,569 ($10,642) or explain why he did not. Because maintenance may not be entered into a child support computation and because no other explanation is offered as to why § HSS 80.03 was not explicitly followed, the child support order represents an end-around the established child support mandates. Whether the children's needs might still be met by first awarding maintenance and then computing child support after deducting maintenance from the noncustodial spouse's gross income is irrelevant.
Because this trial record does not reconcile the child support order of 16.8% of Charles' gross income ($7162) with the legal mandates of WlS. Adm. CODE CH. *299HSS 80 and the Erath language, I am obliged to express this additional concern.

 Wisconsin Adm. Code ch. HSS 80, "Child Support Percentage of Income Standard."