Justices probe upward-deviation award tied to child's medical needs and parental expenses

The North Dakota Supreme Court questioned whether the district court properly awarded an upward deviation from guideline child support based on the child's medical and related care needs in Brett Michael Kingstone v. Trissa Renee Tedrow Kingstone.

Appellant counsel J.C. Johnston argued the evidence did not support classifying the child as having a chronic or disabling condition that would justify the deviation and that the district court erred by accepting unsupported expense figures. "When we're talking about chronic illness or disabling conditions, they're pretty severe," Johnston told the court, adding that post-diagnosis care had been routine checkups and prescribed clotting factor injections as needed.

Johnston pointed to trial exhibit 51 (the mother's budget at record 244) showing a monthly child-expense line item of $2,000 and legal fees of $2,500. She questioned what the $2,000 represented and said the base guideline amount, plus the father's required medical and insurance obligations, covered much of the mother's budget.

Appellee counsel Robert Will answered that the district court relied on Administrative Code provisions and multiple findings, including paragraph 109, which found Trissa Tedrow had $2,000 per month in related costs and that the child had incurred significant appointments, travel and evaluations. "The court did find the increased cost due to the child's medical conditions, which was related to the hemophilia fragile x, which included quite a bit in significant cost of therapy, different, travels associated with that, and, and appointments medical appointments associated with the child," Will said.

Justices pressed both sides on overlapping responsibilities: the district court ordered the father to reimburse out-of-pocket medical expenses and provide insurance; the justices asked whether awarding an additional upward deviation duplicated costs already covered by those directives. Justice Barr asked whether reimbursement for lost work time had precedent as a basis for deviation; Will acknowledged he had not located case law supporting compensation for missed work hours as a child-related cost.

Will said the district court relied on several factors in the administrative-code framework beyond just childcare purchased for employment, and noted the mother's travel and appointments to Mayo Clinic and other centers during the diagnostic period. Johnston responded that many emergency-room visits predated diagnosis, and since the diagnosis there had been no chronic hospitalizations.

The district court ordered the father to pay 100% of out-of-pocket medical costs, provide insurance reimbursement, share activity fees 50-50, pay transportation obligations, and maintain a $750,000 life-insurance policy. Johnston also said the father had set aside $205,000 in college savings for the child.

The justices did not announce a decision from the bench at argument.