Christopher D. v. Krislyn D., 426 P.3d 1118

Christopher and Krislyn D. separated in late 2014; they have two minor children. Custody was litigated over several years with interim orders restricting Christopher’s contact pending substance-abuse treatment.
Christopher, formerly a police officer, resigned in 2014; Krislyn is a veterinarian with substantially higher income. Christopher completed a chemical-dependency program and complied with many court-ordered conditions.
In December 2016 the superior court awarded Krislyn primary physical custody and ordered child support under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3, denying Christopher’s request for a “good cause” variance. The court set support to begin January 1, 2017.
Christopher appealed the denial of a 90.3(c)(1) variance (arguing income disparity and his treatment/visitation costs justify a reduction). Krislyn appealed the choice of the January 1, 2017 effective date (seeking an earlier date back to Nov. 1, 2015).
The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the variance (no clear-and-convincing evidence of manifest injustice) but held the superior court erred by failing to address child support for the interim period between separation and the order’s effective date; remanded for explicit consideration of that period using actual income.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a "good cause" variance under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(c)(1) should reduce Christopher’s guideline support	Christopher: income disparity and substantial treatment/visitation costs make guideline support unjust	State/ K. D.: Rule 90.3 presumptively applies; custodial parent’s income doesn't absolve noncustodial duty; Christopher failed to prove costs by clear and convincing evidence	Denied: no abuse of discretion; Christopher did not present clear and convincing proof of unusual circumstances making guideline application unjust
Proper effective date / whether court must calculate support for period between separation and the order	Krislyn: support should run from Nov. 1, 2015 (or from separation) and earlier interim claims were not extinguished by property settlement	Christopher: parties had informal arrangements and the settlement waived interim support; retroactive award would be unfair	Remanded: court erred by not addressing support for the period between separation and Jan. 1, 2017; child support generally runs from separation and must be calculated using actual income when done retrospectively

Laughlin v. Laughlin, 229 P.3d 1002 (Alaska 2010) (income disparity alone is not necessarily unusual; parental incomes both bear child support contributions)
Berkbigler v. Berkbigler, 921 P.2d 628 (Alaska 1996) (good-cause variance requires clear and convincing proof that manifest injustice would result)
Maloney v. Maloney, 969 P.2d 1148 (Alaska 1998) (non-custodial parent not relieved of support obligation simply because custodial parent can support children)
Spott v. Spott, 17 P.3d 52 (Alaska 2001) (child support generally owed from date of separation; back support can be calculated using Rule 90.3)
Crayton v. Crayton, 944 P.2d 487 (Alaska 1997) (applying Rule 90.3 methodology to periods not covered by prior orders is not retroactive modification of an existing arrearage)