Eleazer v. Eleazer

The trial court balanced the children's needs with the father's ability to pay in finding special circumstances, which justified a downward deviation in the child support guidelines.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case is before the Court from the grant of discretionary review of a portion of a final judgment and decree of divorce which required appellant husband to pay $1,562.50 per month as support for the two children of the marriage.1 Wife appeals, asserting that the award was based on an improper application of Georgia’s Child Support Guidelines, OCGA § 19-6-15. Finding no error, we affirm. The trial court made written findings as follows: Husband’s annual gross income was $118,560, or $9,880 monthly, and wife had no income at the time of trial. The court further noted that the presumptive award of child support for two children ranged between 23 to 28 percent of the obligor’s gross income under OCGA § 19-6-15 b 5. It then applied a mid-range 25 percent of husband’s gross income, and calculated a presumptive award of $2,495 per month. But the court also found that a deviation downward from the guidelines was authorized by the presence of the following special circumstances: 1 husband’s $400 monthly child support obligation for another child OCGA § 9-6-15 c 6; 2 husband’s gross annual income substantially exceeds $75,000 OCGA § 19-6-15 c 11 B; 3 husband must pay the cost of accident and health insurance for the children of the parties, as well as one-half of those expenses not covered by insurance OCGA § 19-6-15 c 16; and 4 husband would incur extraordinary expenses in traveling from Virginia to Georgia to exercise visitation with the children OCGA § 19-6-15 c 17. On those bases, the trial court found that the presumptive award under OCGA § 19-6-15 b 5 would be excessive and unjust, and it awarded child support payments of $1,562.50 per month. The court arrived at that amount by calculating 25 percent of $75,000, and dividing that figure by 12 months.

1. Wife asserts that trial court erred in basing its award on a gross annual income equal to $75,000.

Eleazer v. Eleazer

The trial court balanced the children's needs with the father's ability to pay in finding special circumstances, which justified a downward deviation in the child support guidelines.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report