In re L.K.Y., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1674

Docket NºCourt of Appeals No. 12CA1674
Citation410 P.3d 492
Case DateJuly 03, 2013
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

410 P.3d 492

Concerning Karen Elizabeth Peabody, Appellant,
Angela Francis Young, n/k/a Evan Young, Appellee.

Court of Appeals No. 12CA1674

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. A.

Announced July 3, 2013

Teddi Ann Barry, P.C., Teddi A. Barry, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant

Beltz & West, P.C., Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Appellee

Opinion by JUDGE NEY*

¶ 1 In this action to determine parental responsibilities for L.K.Y. and J.R.Y., who are the children of Angela Francis Young (now known as Evan Young) and Karen Elizabeth Peabody, Peabody appeals from the order for temporary child support. We affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 The parties entered into a domestic partnership in California in 2005, and are the parents of twins born in 2006. The parties moved to Colorado with the children in 2008. In 2011, the California court dissolved the parties' domestic partnership, and Peabody petitioned the Colorado district court to allocate parental responsibilities. Young moved for temporary child support.

¶ 3 After a hearing on Young's child support request, a district court magistrate determined the parties' incomes and awarded temporary child support accordingly. The district court denied Peabody's timely petition for district court review.

II. Temporary Child Support Order

¶ 4 Peabody contends that the magistrate erred by including Young's military allowances for housing and food as part of Young's income for purposes of calculating temporary child support, rather than deducting the allowances as additional factors that diminish the children's basic needs under section 14–10–115(11)(b), C.R.S. 2012. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 5 "Interpretation of the child support statutes is a question of law that we review de novo." In re Marriage of Paige, 2012 COA 83, ¶ 9, 282 P.3d 506 ; see also In re Marriage of Dunkle, 194 P.3d 462, 465 (Colo.App.2008) (reviewing de novo the legal issue whether foster care and adoption subsidies received by a parent are income for child support purposes).

B. The Magistrate Did Not Err by Including Young's Military Housing and Food Allowances in Her Income When Calculating Child Support

¶ 6 The basic child support obligation for a child's parents is determined by applying the schedule in section 14–10–115(7)(b), C.R.S. 2012, to the parents' combined gross incomes. See § 14–10–115(7)(a)(I), C.R.S. 2012; In re Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530, 534 (Colo.App.2011). The basic obligation is then divided between the parents in proportion to their incomes. § 14–10–115(7)(a)(I).

¶ 7 A parent's gross income is determined under section 14–10–115(5), C.R.S. 2012. § 14–10–115(3)(c), (5)(a), C.R.S.2012. Under section 14–10–115(5)(a)(I)(X), C.R.S. 2012, "gross income" includes "[e]xpense reimbursements

410 P.3d 494

or in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of employment ... if they are significant and reduce personal living expenses."

¶ 8 Here, Young, who is in the United States Army, lives off base and therefore receives housing and food allowances in addition to her salary. Over Peabody's objection, the magistrate included these allowances when calculating Young's gross income for purposes of determining the parties' basic child support obligation.

¶ 9 We conclude that the magistrate did not err in doing so. The housing and food allowances are intended to reimburse Young for her housing and food expenses, and thus, as Peabody admits, reduce Young's personal living expenses....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Vance v. Joyner, NO. 4-19-0136
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 5, 2019
    ...child support obligation. See 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1.5) (West 2018); see also In re Parental Responsibilities of L.K.Y. , 2013 COA 108, ¶ 12, 410 P.3d 492 (finding child support order properly included military reimbursement payments received by the obligee parent as income because, where stat......
  • In re I.M., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1412
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • July 3, 2013
    ...the action was dismissed as time barred.¶ 27 Accordingly, we discern no error by the trial court in denying mother's request to join I.M.410 P.3d 492V. Appellate Attorney Fees ¶ 28 Russo requests an award of appellate attorney fees under sections 13–17–102(4) and 19–4–117, C.R.S. 2012. We r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT