AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 calculation of child support following the divorce of the parties. The parents share custody of two children, with one child spending 59% of the time with the father and 41% with the mother, and the other child spending 71% of the time with the mother and 29% with the father. The issue arises because the statutory guidelines for child support do not explicitly address this mixed custody arrangement (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, Dona Ana County: The court calculated child support using both Worksheet A (for basic visitation) and Worksheet B (for shared responsibility), resulting in a total monthly payment of $865 from the father to the mother (paras 6-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court should have used only Worksheet B, treating the overall custody arrangement as shared responsibility based on the average time the children spend with each parent. He claimed this would reduce his monthly child support obligation to $579 (para 9).
• Respondent (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in using both Worksheet A and Worksheet B to calculate child support in a mixed custody arrangement.
• How child support should be calculated when the statutory guidelines do not explicitly address the specific custody arrangement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's child support award and remanded the case for recalculation, determining that the presumptively correct monthly payment from the father to the mother is $655 (paras 35-36).

Reasons

Per Hartz J. (Wechsler and Armijo JJ. concurring):

• The statutory guidelines for child support do not explicitly address mixed custody arrangements where one child is in a basic visitation arrangement and the other is in a shared responsibility arrangement (paras 24-25).
• The court rejected the father's argument to use only Worksheet B based on the average time the children spend with each parent, as this would improperly credit the father for time spent with the child for whom he does not provide a home (paras 26-27).
• Instead, the court determined that the guidelines should be applied separately for each child, treating the child in a basic visitation arrangement under Worksheet A and the child in a shared responsibility arrangement under Worksheet B. Adjustments were made to account for the fact that the mother provides a home for both children, while the father provides a home for only one (paras 29-33).
• The court recalculated the child support obligations, resulting in a presumptive monthly payment of $655 from the father to the mother, which better reflects the statutory purposes of ensuring equitable and consistent child support awards (paras 34-35).