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 modification of a child support obligation. The appellant, representing himself, contested the district court's decision which was based on a child support hearing officer's (CSHO) findings. The disagreement primarily centered around the timesharing arrangement between the appellant and the mother of the children, which was used to calculate child support. The appellant argued that the actual amount of time spent with each parent was not accurately reflected in the 2008 Worksheet B, advocating instead for an equal timesharing arrangement as outlined in the 2008 parenting plan.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the CSHO erred in relying on the timesharing plan from the 2008 Worksheet B for calculating child support, asserting that it did not accurately reflect the actual time spent with each parent. The appellant contended that an equal timesharing arrangement, as outlined in the 2008 parenting plan, should have been considered. The appellant also attempted to submit a transcript of the proceedings to support his case.
• Appellee (Mother): Asserted that the timesharing arrangement outlined in the 2008 Worksheet B accurately reflected the actual time the children spent with each parent. The mother's motion to modify child support was based on a change in the parties' income, which resulted in a statutory presumption of changed circumstances, rather than a material change in the timesharing arrangement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the child support hearing officer erred in relying on the timesharing plan outlined in the parties’ 2008 Worksheet B to calculate child support.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to modify the appellant's child support obligation was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring, found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision. The court noted that the appellant generally challenged all findings made by the CSHO but failed to provide a complete recitation of all evidence and testimony presented at the modification hearing. The court highlighted that the CSHO found conflicting testimony regarding the timesharing issue but determined that neither party presented persuasive evidence to warrant a departure from the terms of the original agreement in calculating child support. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the mother had the burden to show a material change in circumstances regarding the timesharing arrangement, clarifying that the mother's petition to modify child support was based solely on a change in the parties' income, which resulted in a statutory presumption of changed circumstances.