Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Walker

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department E

June 27, 2013

In re the Matter of: BRADLEY WALKER, Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
BIANCA MARIE GUY, Respondent/Appellant.

Not for Publication (Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2004-004798 The Honorable Thomas L. LeClaire, Judge

Bradley Walker In Propria Persona Petitioner/Appellee

Bianca M. Guy, In Propria Persona Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge

¶1 Bradley Walker ("Father") and Bianca Marie Guy ("Mother") are the biological parents of their nine-year-old daughter. After Mother relocated to Colorado with her husband and three other children, the superior court awarded Father temporary sole physical custody of Daughter. Father was also relieved of his child support obligations to Mother. In October 2011, Father filed a motion to establish child support payments in order to adjust to the new custodial arrangements.

¶2 The family court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion in April 2012. At the hearing, both parties presented evidence of annual income, parental support days, and other expenses relevant to child care. Based on this evidence, the court found that Father's monthly income equaled $1540.70 and that his monthly child care expenses equaled $400. The court also attributed an annual income of $32, 048 to Mother. In its calculations, the court credited Mother for paying $53.92 per month in medical insurance for Daughter. It also credited Mother for the care of her three other children who are not part of her relationship with Father.

¶3 Applying the Arizona Child Support Guidelines — specifically, Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 25-320 app. (Supp. 2012) — the court ordered that Mother pay $466.51 per month in child support to Father. Mother timely appeals. This court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2012).

CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATION

¶4 Mother argues that the family court abused its discretion in its determination of child support payments. She asserts the court erred in determining Father's monthly income, Mother's attributable income, Father's child care costs, and the number of Mother's parenting days.

¶5 This court defers to the sound discretion of the family court and reviews awards of child support for an abuse of that discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999). An abuse of discretion occurs when the family court's decision is "devoid of competent evidence to support the decision." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Father's Income

¶6First, Mother argues that the family court erred in attributing $1540.70 to the Father as monthly income. She states that the court used Father's net earnings, rather than his gross earnings, to calculate his monthly income. "We accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous." McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 30, 6, 49 P.3d 300, 302 (App. 2002).

¶7 The record indicates that, in calculating the child support award, the court used the number listed under gross monthly income on Father's Affidavit of Financial information ("Affidavit") . This number is labeled "gross income, " and Mother did not establish that this label is incorrect or that Father incorrectly completed the Affidavit. Father additionally testified that his monthly income was $1540.70. On this record, the court acted within its discretion by using the Affidavit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.