2019 COA 97
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents (Alvis) divorced; court awarded equal parenting time for three children and ordered father to pay $453/month child support to mother.
- Colorado statute defines "extraordinary medical expenses" as uninsured medical costs in excess of $250 per child per year, which are to be added to the basic child support obligation and split by income.
- Father sought an order requiring mother to pay the first $250 of uninsured medical expenses per child per year; the district court held neither parent may seek reimbursement from the other for amounts under $250 per child per year.
- Mother moved for reconsideration asking allocation in proportion to incomes; father argued mother should pay because she receives child support.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered whether the first $250 is part of basic support or an extraordinary expense requiring reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | Mother's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first $250 of uninsured medical expenses per child per year is reimbursable between parents | Mother receives child support, so she should be responsible for the first $250 | The $250 is not reimbursable; it is accounted for in basic child support and should be shared | The first $250 is part of the basic child support obligation and not reimbursable; neither parent may seek reimbursement until expenses exceed $250 per child per year |
| Allocation of responsibility when parents share parenting time equally | The parent receiving child support (mother) should pay the $250 because support offsets ordinary expenses | Basic support is shared; each parent pays expenses incurred during their parenting time up to $250 | When parents share time, each pays uninsured medical expenses incurred during their parenting time until the child's total reaches $250, then reimbursement is apportioned by income |
| Whether prior cases (Marson, Finer) require custodial parent to pay excluded amount | Father relies on prior cases to argue custodial-payment rule applies | Mother disputes those cases control given equal/shared custody here | Prior cases are distinguishable; they involved a custodial parent context and do not control this equal-parenting situation |
| Whether court may deviate from rule if one parent actually bears most of the $250 expense | Not argued separately by father | Mother asked court to allocate by income; court may deviate if inequity shown | District court may deviate from basic allocation under §14-10-115(8)(e) if factual findings show one parent is likely to incur most of the excluded expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Patterson, 185 P.3d 811 (Colo. 2008) (statutory provisions must be harmonized within comprehensive scheme)
- In re Marriage of White, 240 P.3d 534 (Colo. App. 2010) (basic support covers child necessities; context for child support obligations)
- In re Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530 (Colo. App. 2011) (basic child support obligation derived from schedule applied to combined incomes)
- People v. Martinez, 70 P.3d 474 (Colo. 2003) (parents share obligation to support children)
- State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000) (avoid statutory interpretation producing absurd results)
- In re Marriage of Marson, 929 P.2d 51 (Colo. App. 1996) (prior division assumed custodial parent paid excluded uninsured amount)
- In re Marriage of Finer, 920 P.2d 325 (Colo. App. 1996) (similar prior assumption regarding custodial-parent responsibility)