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 an appeal by Frankie D. Ortega (Father) against a district court’s order modifying child support in favor of Jasmine Hope Ortega (Mother).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the district court's use of the basic allowance for subsistence was erroneous because military allowances are not included in the calculation of taxable income for federal income tax purposes. Contended that his military benefits should not be included in the calculation of child support and that monetary help received by Mother from her mother and significant other should be considered as part of her gross income. Also argued that Mother’s housing assistance and the internet and telephone costs he pays should be incorporated into the child support calculation.
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether military allowances should be considered in the calculation of gross income for child support purposes.
• Whether monetary help received by Mother from third parties should be included in the gross income calculation for child support.
• Whether Mother’s housing assistance and the internet and telephone costs paid by Father should be incorporated into the child support calculation.

Disposition

• The district court’s order modifying child support was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, provided several reasons for affirming the district court’s order. The Court found Father’s arguments unpersuasive and deemed his argument regarding the use of sources other than tax return information for the calculation of gross income as abandoned due to lack of response to the proposed disposition. The Court referenced case law stating that military allowances are proper sources of income for determining child support payments, and Father did not successfully challenge this precedent. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statute Father relied on for excluding his military benefits from gross income calculations was not applicable to the calculation of child support benefits due. The Court also held that sporadic monetary gifts received by Mother do not generally constitute gross income under the relevant statute, and Father’s failure to address this in his arguments was noted. Lastly, the Court declined to address issues raised for the first time on appeal regarding Mother’s housing assistance and certain costs paid by Father, citing lack of preservation of these issues in the lower court. The Court emphasized its role as an appellate body, limited to reviewing issues raised and decided by the district court, and suggested that any claims of changed circumstances justifying a modification of child support should be pursued in district court.