TURNER V. TURNER
684 S.E.2d 596 (2009)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Raymond (H) sought review of a decision that deviated from
presumptive amounts for child support and included no express findings.
FACTS: Raymond and Jessica (W) were married in 1999 and had two children. H filed for
divorce in January 2008. The parties reached a partial settlement agreement which provided
that H and W would share joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children, the
custody arrangement being structured so husband is to have physical custody of the children
from Friday a.m. until Tuesday a.m., and wife is to have physical custody from Tuesday a.m.
through Friday a.m., with exceptions for holidays and other special occasions. H also agreed
to pay W $11,000 representing her interest in the marital residence. The court ordered H to
pay $ 552.09 in monthly child support, and apportioned the expenses for the children's
extracurricular activities two-thirds to H and one-third to W. The trial court's order
includes a finding that H earned gross monthly income of $5,483.56, approximately 65 percent
of the parties' combined income. After determining a basic child support obligation of
$1,582 for the parties' two minor children, the court calculated H's pro rata share of the
basic child support obligation to be $986.75. The court applied a parenting time deviation
of $ 434.66, reducing husband's monthly child support obligation to $552.09. H appealed. H
contends the trial court erred by failing to explain how the court calculated the deviation
and failing to include express findings that the deviation was in the best interests of the
children and would not seriously impair his ability to provide for the children.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment