Opinion
Record No. 0386-92-1
February 9, 1993
FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE FREDERICK H. CREEKMORE, JUDGE
Paul M. Lipkin (Goldblatt, Lipkin Cohen, P.C., on brief), for appellant.
Robert E. Henley, III (Rothenberg, Henley Robertson, P.C., on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Willis, Elder and Bray
Argued at Norfolk, Virginia
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
In determining Mr. Johnson's support obligation, the trial court must first calculate the presumptively correct amount under Code § 20-108.2. Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991). This requires determination of the parties' combined income and the determination of their joint support obligation for one child according to the table set forth in Code § 20-108.2(B). No additions or subtractions may be made before this figure is ascertained. Id. at 21, 401 S.E.2d at 896. To this figure shall be added any extraordinary medical and dental expenses, Code § 20-108.2(D), and any child-care costs incurred due to employment of the custodial parent, Code § 20-108.2(F). The resulting figure shall be divided between the parents in the proportion that their respective monthly gross incomes bear to their combined monthly gross income. Code § 20-108.2(F). The amount thus attributable to the non-custodial parent becomes the presumptively correct amount of his child support obligation. This figure must then be gauged against the general standards found in Code § 20-108.1. If, upon that analysis, the trial court determines that the child support award should vary from the presumptively correct amount, it must set forth in writing its findings supporting that variation with sufficient specificity to permit effective appellate review. Richardson at 22, 401 S.E.2d at 897.
The trial court erred in the following respects:
(1) It erred in including Mr. Johnson's wife's disability income in determining his gross income. This was not income to him and was an impermissible inclusion for purposes of the tabular computation.
(2) It erred in making the tabular computation on the basis of three children and then calculating Mr. Johnson's obligation to the subject child as one-third of that amount. Support for only one child was at issue. That child is to be supported singly, not in conjunction with Mr. Johnson's two legitimate children. The effect of the trial court's method was to impose on Ms. Daughtry a support obligation with respect to Mr. Johnson's two legitimate children. The computation should have been made on the basis of the one subject child, producing a presumptively correct support obligation. This figure should then have been gauged according to the standards of Code § 20-108.1. If other circumstances, including Mr. Johnson's obligation to his two legitimate children, justified a deviation from the presumptive amount, the trial court should have set forth those findings with sufficient specificity to enable review.
(3) It erred in failing to include in its order the informational requirements of Code § 20-60.3.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for redetermination of Mr. Johnson's child support obligation in accordance with the principles herein set forth. If circumstances require, the court shall hear further evidence presented by the parties in order to bring the financial data current.
Reversed and remanded.