Ronny M. v. Nanette H.

[FAMILY LAW]

In Ronny M. v. Nanette H.,[1] the supreme court held that the fact that the non-custodial parent earns a smaller income than the primary physical custodial parent does not constitute “good cause” to vary child support payments.[2] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Ronny M. and Nanette H. lived in Florida and had two children together.[3] Eventually, the couple separated, with Nanette maintaining custody.[4] In 2009, Nanette moved to Alaska with the two children.[5] In November 2010 Nanette filed in the lower court for sole legal and primary physical custody of the children as well as to receive child support payments.[6] In 2011, the lower court ordered Ronny to pay Nanette $215 per month in child support.[7] On appeal, Ronny argued that the lower court should have found “good cause” to vary the child support payments because Nanette had enough money to support the children without his payments that he could not afford.[8] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that even though Nannette made more money than Ronny, the difference between their incomes did not amount to a showing of manifest injustice, which is required to find good cause.[9] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the fact that the non-custodial parent earns a smaller income than the primary physical custodial parent does not constitute “good cause” to vary child support payments.[10]

 



[1] 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 406.

[3] Id. at 396.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 395.

[7] Id. at 399, 406.

[8] Id. at 405–06.

[9] Id. at 406.

[10] Id.

Ronny M. v. Nanette H.

[FAMILY LAW]

In Ronny M. v. Nanette H.,[1] the supreme court held that the fact that the non-custodial parent earns a smaller income than the primary physical custodial parent does not constitute “good cause” to vary child support payments.[2] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Ronny M. and Nanette H. lived in Florida and had two children together.[3] Eventually, the couple separated, with Nanette maintaining custody.[4] In 2009, Nanette moved to Alaska with the two children.[5] In November 2010 Nanette filed in the lower court for sole legal and primary physical custody of the children as well as to receive child support payments.[6] In 2011, the lower court ordered Ronny to pay Nanette $215 per month in child support.[7] On appeal, Ronny argued that the lower court should have found “good cause” to vary the child support payments because Nanette had enough money to support the children without his payments that he could not afford.[8] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that even though Nannette made more money than Ronny, the difference between their incomes did not amount to a showing of manifest injustice, which is required to find good cause.[9] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the fact that the non-custodial parent earns a smaller income than the primary physical custodial parent does not constitute “good cause” to vary child support payments.[10]

 



[1] 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 406.

[3] Id. at 396.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 395.

[7] Id. at 399, 406.

[8] Id. at 405–06.

[9] Id. at 406.

[10] Id.