Opinion
Supreme Court No. S-11546.
March 28, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, (No. 4FA-95-3103 Civil) Fairbanks, Mark I. Wood, Judge.
Appearances: David K. Allen, Assistant Public Advocate, Fairbanks, Joshua Fink, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Andrew Harrington, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, Fairbanks, for Appellee.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law or as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Entered pursuant to Appellate Rule 214.
I. INTRODUCTION
John Baker appeals the modification of his ex-wife's child support obligation for their two children. We affirm the modification.
II.FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Anita Adams (then Anita John) and John Baker had two children. Anita and John ended their relationship, and John took primary physical custody of both children. Pursuant to a superior court order, Anita paid John $50 each month in child support.
Anita eventually married another man, Jeffrey Adams, with whom she had three children. Jeffrey failed to support their new family.
John filed a motion in superior court to increase Anita's child support obligations to him. John argued that Anita's income justified a higher baseline child support obligation as calculated under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 — roughly $500 a month. The court increased Anita's monthly obligation to $200 a month, thus declining to impose the full Rule 90.3 baseline obligation. It held that imposing the full obligation would place a substantial hardship upon Anita's three younger children. At the hearing, the court added that while Jeffrey might provide Anita with some financial assistance, this possibility was speculative.
From this order of modification, John appeals.
III.DISCUSSION
We review orders to modify child support obligations, including departures from the Rule 90.3 baseline, for abuse of discretion.
Byers v. Ovitt, 133 P.3d 676, 680 (Alaska 2006).
On appeal, John argues only that the superior court abused its discretion by finding that Jeffrey was unlikely to financially assist Anita and by relying on this finding to impose less than the full Rule 90.3 baseline obligation upon her. We disagree.
Civil Rule 90.3(a) promulgates a baseline formula that courts should use when calculating a non-custodial parent's child support obligation. Courts may depart from this baseline for "good cause" when awarding child support. One situation in which courts may depart downward from the baseline award is where the baseline would impose "substantial hardship" upon the non-custodial parent's subsequent children. The extent to which a given award imposes hardship upon subsequent children may depend upon the amount of financial assistance that the non-custodial parent is likely to receive from her new spouse. Courts have discretion to determine the financial assistance a new spouse is likely to provide.
See Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 cmt. VI(A) (stating that this baseline obligation presumptively applies).
Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 cmt. VI(B)(2).
Id.
Cf. Renfro v. Renfro, 848 P.2d 830, 833 (Alaska 1993) ("In determining earning capacity for Rule 90.3 purposes, the court has discretion, on the evidence before it, to choose `the best indicator of . . . future earning capacity.'" (quoting Coghill v. Coghill, 836 P.2d 921, 926 (Alaska 1992))).
The superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Jeffrey was an uncertain source of support to Anita and their children. At trial, Anita testified that Jeffrey was recently released from jail, that he was unemployed at the time of trial, that he had a child outside of his marriage to Anita for whom he owed child support, and that he generally had not been supporting their children. John's sole evidence in rebuttal is Anita's testimony that Jeffrey was physically healthy and might have a mining job awaiting him. Anita's testimony amply supported the court's conclusion
Accordingly, we hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding that substantial hardship to Anita's younger children justified deviating from the child support guidelines. The order for child support modification is therefore AFFIRMED.