This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves the dissolution of a marriage between the Petitioner (Father) and the Respondent (Mother), including disputes over child support, division of community property, and custody arrangements. The couple, married in 1987, separated in 1996, and have two children. The children spend equal time with each parent under a joint custody arrangement. Disputes arose over the calculation of child support, including the valuation of Mother's income, child care costs, and private school tuition (paras 1, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Issued a decree dissolving the marriage, dividing community property, and determining child support. The Father appealed the child support determination (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the trial court erred in calculating Mother's income by failing to account for in-kind benefits, annual gifts, and potential income from cash assets and full-time employment. He also disputed the determination of child care costs and the inclusion of private school tuition in child support calculations (paras 2-4, 13, 19, 26, 34, 38, 43).
- Respondent (Mother): Contended that gifts should not be included as income and that the trial court correctly imputed part-time income to her. She supported the inclusion of private school tuition in child support and argued for proportional imputation of child care costs if income was imputed to her (paras 10, 19, 33, 41, 44).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in determining Mother's income for child support purposes, including in-kind benefits, gifts, and potential income from cash assets and full-time employment.
- Whether the trial court erred in calculating child care costs for both parents.
- Whether the trial court erred in including private school tuition in the child support calculation.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on the imputation of income from Mother's residence, the exclusion of gifts from her income, and the inclusion of private school tuition in child support.
- The Court reversed and remanded the issues of imputation of income to Mother from cash assets and full-time employment, as well as the calculation of child care costs for both parents (paras 48-49).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca J. (Harris L. Hartz CJ. and James J. Wechsler J. concurring):
Mother's Income: The court upheld the trial court's valuation of the in-kind benefit of Mother's residence at $1,000 per month, rejecting Father's argument for a higher valuation. It also affirmed the exclusion of gifts from Mother's income, finding that the statutory language did not mandate their inclusion unless the trial court chose to deviate from the guidelines, which it did not. However, the court found that the trial court erred in failing to impute income to Mother from her cash assets and full-time employment, as the evidence supported a reasonable rate of return and her capacity to work full-time (paras 13-18, 19-25, 26-36).
Child Care Costs: The court held that the trial court's determination of Father's child care costs lacked clarity and may have been based on an improper premise. It remanded the issue for recalculation or clarification. Similarly, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the imputation of child care costs to Mother in light of the imputation of full-time employment income (paras 37-41).
Private School Tuition: The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's inclusion of private school tuition in the child support calculation, as the decision was within the trial court's discretion and supported by evidence (paras 42-47).