406 P.3d 729
Wyo.2017Background
- Mother (TSR) and Father (DLB) had one child, LLB (born 2004); Father later had another child (KSB) in 2008 with a different partner.
- Initial support orders were entered (2007) and later modified by agreement (2011) that reduced Father’s obligation because he supported the later-born child.
- In 2016 the State (Child Support Enforcement Program) sought modification of Father’s support for LLB; a 2017 district court order recalculated presumptive support and granted a downward deviation because Father supported the later-born child.
- The district court used the one-child guideline to determine presumptive support for LLB, then used the two-child guideline when calculating the downward deviation amount.
- The court reduced Father’s monthly support to $610 and continued a $100 monthly arrearage payment; Mother appealed arguing misuse of the guideline matrix and insufficient specific findings for the deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | State/Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by using the two-child guideline matrix to calculate a downward deviation under W.S. § 20-2-307(b) | Using the two-child matrix was improper; deviation must be calculated only from the one-child presumptive amount | Hasty permits considering later-born children at the deviation stage; court may use multi-child presumptive figures to calculate a fair deviation | No abuse of discretion; court properly considered later-born child and used two-child figures to calculate deviation |
| Whether the court erred by not making specific findings to support the downward deviation under W.S. § 20-2-307(b) | The order lacked sufficiently specific findings explaining why presumptive support was unjust or inappropriate | The order explicitly stated deviation was based on Father’s responsibility for a later-born child—an enumerated statutory factor | Affirmed; the statement that presumptive support was unjust because Father supports another minor child satisfies the statute’s requirement for specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hasty v. Hasty, 828 P.2d 94 (Wyo. 1992) (permits consideration of later-born children at the deviation stage of a modification and explains initial presumptive support should be based only on children in the modification petition)
- Opitz v. Opitz, 173 P.3d 406 (Wyo. 2007) (requires that a court specifically set forth reasons in the order when deviating from presumptive child support)