Court Opinion

ID: 9602584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:57:20.203693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:03:32.052787
License: Public Domain

Judge HUME
specially concurring.
I concur in the conclusion by the majority that § 14-10-115(7)(d.5)(I), C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.) unambiguously requires only a showing of legal responsibility for support of other children in order to be entitled to an adjustment of gross income for purposes of calculating support in pending proceedings. I also agree that the statute clearly establishes a method for calculating the adjustment and does not require a finding warranting a deviation from the guidelines.
*79I write separately only to question whether the General Assembly intended the statute to apply under circumstances such as are presented in this ease.
The statement in Colorado Child Support Commission Report 17 (1991) that the deduction applies “only if the legally responsible parent is actually providing support for the child” seems eminently sensible as a matter of public policy. The use of the child support guidelines to establish the amount of a parent’s obligation to support a presently existing family unit is also reasonable because it eliminates the necessity of an accounting of amounts expended for food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, and other necessities of life that are incorporated into the presumptive support guidelines.
However, the uniform application of § 14-10-115(7)(d.5)(I) to determine the amount of income adjustment for all non-court-ordered support obligations owed to other children is illogical and may yield unjust results in other circumstances. Here, for example, father is entitled, under the terms of the statute, to a $1,400 monthly adjustment to his income because of his obligation to provide support for six other children. It makes no difference if he actually pays nothing or if he pays $1,000 per child per month toward the support of each of those six children. If the father pays nothing or a minimal amount toward the support obligation for the other children, I see no logical reason why he should be entitled to a $1,400 windfall deduction.
Thus, I question whether the General Assembly actually intended that the statute be applied in the manner indicated by the language used therein.