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 a dispute over the modification of child support payments. The father, who resides in South Carolina, argued that the modified child support amount created financial hardship and raised concerns about the calculation of child care expenses and potential tax benefits received by the mother. The mother and children reside in Roswell, New Mexico. The father also sought an abatement of child support during summer visitation periods (paras 1, 6, 8, 10, 12).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 2004: A stipulated judgment ordered the father to pay $443.83 per month in child support, plus $100 toward arrears, for a total of $543.83 per month (para 6).
- District Court, April 2007: The State of New Mexico, Human Services Department, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) filed a motion to intervene and modify child support, which was granted. A hearing was held in August 2007, and the court ordered the father to pay $878.21 per month in child support retroactive to April 2007 (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the modified child support amount created financial hardship, the court failed to consider his evidence for deviation from the guidelines, and the child care expenses were improperly calculated. He also sought an abatement of child support during summer visitation and claimed the children were not receiving the described child care (paras 8-12, 14-15).
- Appellee (Mother): Did not provide specific arguments in the decision text (N/A).
- Intervenor-Appellee (State of New Mexico, CSED): Supported the modification of child support in accordance with statutory guidelines.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in modifying the child support amount, creating financial hardship for the father?
- Did the district court fail to consider the father’s evidence for deviation from the child support guidelines?
- Was the father entitled to an abatement of child support during summer visitation?
- Did the district court err in calculating child care expenses and failing to consider potential tax benefits received by the mother?
- Should the court have considered the father’s claim that the children were not receiving the described child care?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment (para 16).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Child Support Amount: The court followed statutory child support guidelines, which presume the calculated amount is appropriate. The father’s gross income was $4,167 per month, and the modified support amount, including arrears, was 22.28% of his income, below the threshold for presumed financial hardship. The district court was not required to deviate from the guidelines (paras 8-9).
Review of Evidence: The father failed to show that the documents he referenced were part of the record or exhibits presented to the district court. The court considered the father’s testimony but found no substantial reason to deviate from the guidelines. The court also provided accommodations, such as delaying retroactive payments and allowing arrears to be paid through tax intercept (paras 10-11).
Abatement for Summer Visitation: The father was not eligible for abatement until the summer of 2009, when the children were scheduled to visit for a full month. The court informed the father he could raise the issue in the future, and its decision not to order an abatement at the time was within its discretion (para 12).
Child Care Expenses and Tax Benefits: The father did not raise the issue of potential tax benefits at the hearing, and the court declined to consider it on appeal. The father’s claim that the children were not receiving the described child care was also not raised in the district court and was therefore not reviewed on appeal (paras 13-15).