Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed an order reducing a father's child support obligation to zero during his incarceration and requiring the parties to seek modification after his release. The court held that the mother could not challenge the reduction on appeal because she had not opposed it in the trial court. It further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to automatically reinstate the prior support amount upon the father's release.
Holdings
- MacKowiak could not challenge the reduction on appeal because she did not oppose that modification in the trial court.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the parties to seek a new child support determination after Harris's release rather than automatically reinstating the prior award.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in affirming the reduction of Harris's child support obligation to zero because he was incarcerated.
- Whether the district court erred in affirming the trial court's refusal to automatically reinstate the prior child support award upon Harris's release from incarceration.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (9)
- Reisenauer v. State, Department of Transportation, 145 Idaho 948, 949, 188 P.3d 890, 891 (2008)(followed)
- Rohr v. Rohr, 128 Idaho 137, 141, 911 P.2d 133, 137 (1996)(followed)
- Farr v. Mischler, 129 Idaho 201, 205, 923 P.2d 446, 450 (1996)(followed)
- Kirkman v. Stoker, 134 Idaho 541, 544, 6 P.3d 397, 400 (2000)(followed)
- Porter v. Board of Trustees, Preston School Dist. No. 201, 141 Idaho 11, 105 P.3d 671 (2004)(followed)
- Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 765, 86 P.3d 475, 479 (2004)(followed)
- Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512, 757 P.2d 1231 (Ct. App. 1988)(followed)
- Humbird v. Humbird, 42 Idaho 29, 243 P. 827 (1926)(discussed)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 51 Idaho 99, 4 P.2d 345 (1931)(discussed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…