Marriage of English, In re, 87CA0734
| Decision Date | 02 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87CA0734,87CA0734 |
| Citation | 757 P.2d 1130 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Martha Martin ENGLISH, n/k/a Martha Martin, Appellant, and Ronald Harvey English, Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Joseph M. Riddle, P.C., Candace H. Bowie, Boulder, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Martha Martin English (mother) appeals the order entered on her motion to modify child support. She contends that the trial court incorrectly interpreted § 14-10-115, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the child support guidelines. We reverse.
Mother argues that the trial court erred when it subtracted the amount deducted from father's pay as a health insurance premium for the children from the total amount of his support obligation under the guidelines. We agree.
Section 14-10-115(2), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) provides that the court may order a parent to provide medical insurance for the children separately from any child support obligation under the guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to § 14-10-115(7)(e), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), the actual cost of maintaining a health insurance policy which covers the children, including the cost of coverage for the parent and other family members, is deducted from the parent's gross income for purposes of the guidelines.
When read together, these subsections indicate that the General Assembly did not intend to include health insurance premiums in the ordinary and necessary expenses covered by the basic child support obligation set forth in the guidelines. Therefore, health insurance premiums paid by one parent are not also deducted from that parent's child support obligation.
Mother also argues that the court erred by giving father almost a full 26% reduction in his support obligation for shared physical custody. She contends the evidence was overwhelming that her contribution to the children's needs was disproportionately large, and the court, therefore, should have found that it would be inequitable to follow the guidelines.
The child support guidelines establish a rebuttable presumption both of the child's reasonable needs and the manner in which that support is to be divided between the parents. Section 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). However, the court may deviate from these guidelines if application would be inequitable, but if it does so, the court must make specific factual findings to support any deviation. Section 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).
Here the court made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Bookout, In re
... ... See In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo.App.1988); In re Marriage of Van Inwegen, supra ... In her cross-appeal, wife first asserts that the trial ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Ikeler
... ... In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo.App.1988) ... Here, the parties had triplets, who would be three years old in April 2005. Wife testified that ... ...
-
Marriage of Finer, In re, 94CA1562
... ... Section 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.); In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo.App.1988) ... Here, however, the parties filed a pre-trial stipulation that, if husband was awarded custody, ... ...
-
Marriage of Thornton, In re
... ... It has the discretion to deviate from the guidelines where justified, provided it makes appropriate findings. See In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo.App.1988). Nevertheless, the hardship which results solely from application of the guidelines is insufficient, absent other ... ...