A court errs as a matter of law when it fails to comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.Gleich v. Gleich, 2001 ND 185, ¶ 12, 636 N.W.2d 418. [¶ 18] Under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-08.
When an obligor has been awarded extended visitation, as defined under the guidelines, the district court must adjust the amount of child support to reflect that visitation in accordance with the guideline formula. Shaw v. Shaw, 2002 ND 114, ¶ 19, 646 N.W.2d 693; Gleich v. Gleich, 2001 ND 185, ¶ 14, 636 N.W.2d 418. There is no dispute that David Cline's court ordered visitation falls within the guideline definition of extended visitation. Consequently, the court must adjust David Cline's support obligation in accordance with N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-08.1.
Corbett [v. Corbett, 2001 ND 113, 628 N.W.2d 312], at ¶ 12 (quoting Freed v. Freed, 454 N.W.2d 516, 520 n. 3 (N.D. 1990)).Gleich v. Gleich, 2001 ND 185, ¶ 6, 636 N.W.2d 418 (emphasis added). [¶ 26] Here, because of the district court's clearly erroneous finding on a Ruff-Fischer guideline, I would reverse and remand for the district court to properly consider the guideline factors.