Simon v. SimonSimon v. Simon
[¶ 1] The State of North Dakota (“the State”), through the Foster County Social Service Board, appeals from a district court judgment interpreting the offset provisions of the split custody and equal custody regulations of the child support guidelines. We affirm, concluding the offset provisions apply to all split custody and equal custody cases, including those where one parent assigns the right to receive child support to the State.
I
[¶ 2] Gail Simon and Quentin Simon were divorced in 2002. The divorce judgment awarded them joint legal and physical custody of their two children. In March 2003, both children began living with Gail Simon and she began receiving benefits on behalf of herself and the two children under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (“TANF”). By applying for TANF, Gail Simon assigned all rights to support, that she or any member of her family may have, to the State under
[¶ 3] In June 2003, Gail Simon moved to modify custody and child support. In September 2003, the district court awarded Gail Simon primary physical custody of one child and awarded Quentin Simon primary physical custody of the other child. The court did not set the parents’ child support obligations at that time. After the custody modification, Gail Simon continued to receive TANF benefits through July 2005, on behalf of herself and the child in her physical custody.
[¶ 4] In January 2004, the State moved to consolidate its action against Quentin Simon with the Simons’ divorce proceeding
*7
and asked the court to order child support. The district court granted the State’s motion to consolidate. In March 2004, the State moved for default judgment in its action against Quentin Simon. The State submitted a proposed order that set each parent’s child support obligation under the split and equal custody provisions of the child support guidelines.
[¶ 5] The district court entered an amended judgment setting Gail Simon’s child support obligation at $168 a month and Quentin Simon’s child support obligation at $330 a month. The court rejected the State’s assertion that the offset provisions did not apply during the periods when Gail Simon received TANF benefits and she had assigned the right to receive child support to the State. The court offset the parents’ obligations and ordered Quentin Simon to pay the net difference of $162 a month from September 2003 through July 2005 when Gail Simon was receiving TANF benefits and had assigned the right to receive support to the State.
[¶ 6] The district court also decided the parents’ child support obligations under the equal custody provision in
[¶ 7] The district court interpreted
[¶ 8] The district court had jurisdiction under
II
[¶ 9] The only issue on appeal involves the interpretation of
[¶ 10] Child support determinations involve questions of law subject to
*8
the de novo standard of review, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may involve matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.
Buchholz v. Buchholz,
[¶ 11] Administrative regulations are derivatives of statutes and are construed using well established principles of statutory construction.
Gofor Oil, Inc. v. State,
[¶ 12] The primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine the intent of the legislature by first looking at the language of the statute.
Amerada Hess Corp. v. State ex rel. Tax Comm’r,
A
[¶ 13] Parents have a mutual duty to support their children.
Determination of child support obligation — Split custody. A child support obligation must be determined for the child or children in each parent’s custody. The lesser obligation is then subtracted from the greater. The difference is the child support amount owed by the parent with the greater obligation.
The language of the regulation does not support the State’s position that the offset does not apply when one parent assigns the right to receive support to the State.
[¶ 14] Even if we were to agree with the State that the provision is ambiguous, the rulemaking history does not support the State’s position.
Determination of support amount — Split custody. A support amount must be determined for the child or children in each parent’s sole custody. The lesser amount is then subtracted from the greater. The difference is the child sup *9 port amount owed by the parent with the greater obligation.
[¶ 15] The history for the 2003 amendment is particularly relevant. The regulation was amended to clarify that each parent has a “child support obligation” and that the “amount owed” was not the sole obligation. Minutes of the Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines Drafting Advisory Committee, p. 13 (May 29, 2002). Before the regulation was amended there was some confusion about whether the “amount owed” was the sole child support obligation. Id. at 13-14. The Child Support Guidelines Drafting Committee (“the Committee”) recognized that in split custody cases both parents owe a support obligation and the monthly “amount owed” is not the sole obligation. Id. at 14. The Committee also recognized the offset is used simply for the convenience of the parents. Id.
[¶ 16] While considering revision of the language of the split custody regulation to clarify that both parents have a child support obligation, the Committee was aware that problems may arise when one parent assigns the right to receive child support to the State in exchange for TANF benefits. Id. at 13. The Committee knew the regulation did not specifically address the situation and that there may be some confusion in determining the parents’ child support obligations during the time when one parent receives TANF benefits. Id. at 13-14. The Committee considered recommending adoption of language that would have provided for an exception to the offset provision when one parent assigns the right to receive support to a “governmental entity.” Id. at 15; Minutes of the Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines Drafting Advisory Committee, p. 2 (June 6, 2002). The Committee decided not to recommend that language because of possible problems when the offset is not applied, including the fluctuating monthly amounts of child support the parents would pay, how parents would receive notice of the change in the monthly payment, and the consequences when one parent could not pay his or her obligation. Id. at 3-4.
[¶ 17] “It must be presumed that the Legislature intended all that it said, and that it said all that it intended to say.”
Little v. Tracy,
[¶ 18] The State’s position also is not consistent with historical application of the regulation. Before the regulation was amended, the offset was applied in all split custody cases, whether or not one parent assigned the right to receive support. Minutes of the Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines Drafting Advisory Committee, p. 3 (June- 6, 2002). The 2003 amendment was specifically intended to clarify that each parent has a child support obligation and the difference in the amount owed was not the sole obligation; there is no indication that the drafters of the amended regulation intended to change the application, of the rule. In fact, the Committee specifically rejected language that would have provided an exception to the offset provision. COiitinuing to apply the offset when one parent -assigns to the State the right to support allows for consistency in application of the regulation.
*10
[¶ 19] The State also argues deference should be given to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulation. An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute is entitled to deference if the statute is complex and technical in nature, or if the statute is reenacted after a contemporaneous and continuous construction of the statute by the administrative agency.
State ex rel. Clayburgh v. American West Community Promotions, Inc.,
[¶ 20] We conclude the offset provision of
B
[¶ 21]
Equal physical custody — Determination of child support obligation. A child support obligation must be determined as described in this section in all cases in which a court orders each parent to have equal physical custody of their child or children. Equal physical custody means each parent has physical custody of the child, or if there are multiple children, all of the children, exactly fifty percent of the time. A child support obligation for each parent must be calculated under this chapter assuming the other parent is the custodial parent of the child or children subject to the equal physical custody order. The lesser obligation is then subtracted from the greater. The difference is the child support amount owed by the parent with the greater obligation. Each parent is an obligee to the extent of the other parent’s calculated obligation. Each parent is an obligor to the extent of that parent’s calculated obligation.
[¶ 22] The Committee recommended adoption of this section in response to this Court’s conclusion that the chüd support guidelines failed to address child support obligations when parents have equal custody.
Minutes of the Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines Drafting Advisory Committee,
p. 17-18 (June 6, 2002);
see Knutson v. Knutson,
Ill
[¶ 23] We hold the offset provisions of