Last week, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Descher vs. Descher located here. One of the issues is that the chancellor ordered more in child support than the child's actual expenses. The Court of Appeals found this was proper.
This was the reasoning.
This Court has previously rejected “the argument
that equates reasonable support with subsistence” and adopted the view that
“the ‘reasonable needs’ of the child ought to be viewed at least as broadly as
the reasonable needs of a wife seeking alimony.” Ali v. Ali, 232 So. 3d 770, 777 (¶21)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2017). The monthly
expenses provided for in a party’s Rule 8.05 financial statement do not set a
cap on an award of child support. Even
if a child’s basic needs are met, “[i]t is not an abuse of discretion for the
chancellor to consider the standard of living to which the child is accustomed
in deciding what amount of support is reasonable.” Ali, 232 So. 3d at 777 (¶21) (citing Moulds
v. Bradley, 791 So. 2d 220, 228-29 (¶24) (Miss. 2001) (Diaz, J.,
concurring)). Even though April claimed
less than $4,000 in monthly expenses for the children, her Rule 8.05
declaration did not cap out the maximum amount of child support the chancellor
could grant. Jeff’s monthly income and
his earning potential far surpass April’s.
As Justice Diaz said in his concurring opinion in Moulds, “[t]he trial
court should not limit the amount in child support to the child’s ‘shown
needs,’ because a child is not expected to live at a minimal level of comfort
while the non-custodial parent is living a life of luxury.” Moulds, 791 So. 2d at 229 (¶26) (Diaz,
J., concurring) (citing People ex rel. Graham v. Adams, 608 N.E.2d 614,
616 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)).
No comments:
Post a Comment