In the Matter of the Marriage of: Sarah Ourada & Sean Amestoy, 39913-3

Sean Amestoy and Sarah Ourada are parents to one child, F.A.; they had a child support order originally entered in 2015.
Ourada petitioned for modification of child support, citing changed incomes and requesting Amestoy help pay for F.A.'s club gymnastics expenses.
Both parties submitted evidence showing they worked approximately 35 hours per week and operated on monthly financial deficits.
Amestoy’s health insurance premium covered his family at a flat rate, not increasing for more dependents, but the court prorated the cost per family member for child support calculations.
The trial court increased Amestoy’s imputed income based on a 40-hour full-time work week, allocated only a prorated credit for health insurance, and required both parents to pay half of F.A.’s gymnastics expenses without assessing ability to pay.
Amestoy appealed, challenging (1) the definition of "full-time" employment, (2) the insurance credit methodology, and (3) the extraordinary expenses order.

Issue	Amestoy's Argument	Ourada's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by defining full-time as 40 hours and imputing extra income?	"Full-time" should be actual, customary hours (35/wk) unless voluntary underemployment is found.	Imputing 40 hours is appropriate; Amestoy could work more hours.	Abuse of discretion; the court erred by using a flat 40-hour standard instead of actual job/industry norms.
Was the method to calculate health insurance credit incorrect?	Credit should be for the full family premium since cost does not increase with more dependents.	Pro rata credit is fair based on number of covered dependents.	No abuse of discretion; pro rata division is a permissible method.
Did the court err by ordering shared payment of gymnastics without assessing necessity and ability to pay?	Court needed to expressly find necessity and ability to pay before imposing obligation.	Order considered finances, gave flexibility about which expenses are jointly paid.	Abuse of discretion; no finding Amestoy could afford the new expenses.
Should the additional extraordinary expenses order be reversed?	Yes—requires specific findings on necessity and affordability.	No—evidence shows expenses were long-term and reasonable.	Yes, reversed; court must reconsider and make findings regarding ability to pay and necessity.

In re Marriage of Chandola, 180 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2014) (standard of review and abuse of discretion in child support modifications)
In re Marriage of Goodell, 130 Wn. App. 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (appropriate methodology for health insurance credit calculation)
In re Marriage of Aiken, 194 Wn. App. 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (necessary findings for extraordinary expenses beyond basic child support)
State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wn. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (requirement to find ability to pay for additional expenses)