CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES: PLATTNER V. PLATTNER (COA 6/29/2007)

PLATTNER V. PLATTNER
FAMILY LAW:  CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
2005-CA-002525
PUBLISHED: REVERSING AND REMANDING
PANEL: COMBS PRESIDING; NICKELL AND WINE CONCUR
COUNTY: KENTON
DATE RENDERED: 6/29/2007

Dad appealed TC’s order denying his motion to substantially reduce his child support obligation, arguing that the original order of support was based on Mom having primary residence of the children, but that now neither of them was designated as the primary residential parent, they now equally shared parenting time and they had approximately the same income.

CA agreed with Dad. CA noted that under KRS 403.211(2) and (3), the trial court may deviate from the Kentucky Child Support Guidelines when it finds that their application would be unjust or inappropriate, and that provision provides trial courts with a measure of flexibility to consider the amount of time that children spend with each parent. Here, because physical custody of the children is evenly divided between the parents, they bear an almost identical responsibility for the day-to-day expenses associated with their care. And since there is no significant disparity between the parties’ annual incomes, the expenses necessary to provide a home for the children (even when they are not in residence) are also incurred by each party in equal proportion. Under the particular circumstances in this case, CA found TC’s order continuing Dad’s child support obligation to Mom to be in error. However, CA distinguished this case from Downey v. Rogers, 847 S.W.2d 63 (Ky. App. 1993), where CA ordered for child support to continue despite an equal parenting time schedule. In Downey, unlike the instant case, Dad had agreed to the child support amount he was seeking to have reduced, and furthermore, his income was double that of Mom’s.

By Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes with www.Louisvilledivorce.com

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

One thought on “CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES: PLATTNER V. PLATTNER (COA 6/29/2007)

  1. My name is candis holcomb and im being done wrong over childsupport by the judge and childsupport office please help