Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs parenting-time calculation and earning-capacity in child-support dispute
Summary
In 25P0503 counsel for the appellant argued the trial court misapplied child-support guidelines by treating the case as 50/50 despite an undisputed schedule giving mother eight overnights and father six; the panel debated whether overnights or hours should control and whether the judge adequately considered the father's earning capacity.
The Appeals Court heard oral argument in 25P0503 about child-support calculations when parenting time and income have shifted. Appellant counsel Rod Aresti urged the panel that the probate court erred by applying a 50/50 guideline calculation despite an undisputed parenting schedule in which the mother has eight overnights and the father six; counsel argued a hours-based analysis shows a roughly 60/40 split and that the judge did not adequately justify departing from guidelines.
The panel questioned the standard of review (abuse of discretion) and whether the judge’s factual findings support deviation from presumptive guideline amounts. Aresti cited Katzmann v. Healy and other authority to argue courts should consider waking-time responsibilities and not rely solely on overnight counts. He also argued the trial court did not adequately address the father’s earning capacity, where the father had suffered a decline in W-2 income and asserted expected future increases from a small-business tutoring operation.
Judges noted the parties previously agreed to a 50/50 calculation and probed whether that prior agreement and the lack of a parenting-time modification limited appellate relief. The panel also discussed attribution of future income and whether speculative earning-capacity claims should alter present guideline calculations. After extensive questioning, the panel submitted the matter for decision.
