Summary
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a child support modification involving parents who shared residential time equally with their children. It held that the Arvey split-residential formula does not apply in shared-residential situations, although a trial court may consider residential arrangements when deciding whether to deviate from the standard calculation. The court also reversed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a trial court has discretion to extrapolate beyond the child support economic table and awarded appellate fees and costs to Cunliffe.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Arvey split-residential formula applies when both parents equally share residential time with the same children.
- Whether RCW 26.19.020 permits or creates a presumption favoring extrapolation beyond the child-support economic table when combined monthly net income exceeds $7,000.
- Whether either party was entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal.
Holdings
- The Arvey split-residential formula does not apply when parents share residential time with the same children.
- A trial court may not use mechanical extrapolation from the economic table when setting a basic child support obligation above the table's income range.
- Cunliffe was entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal; Graham was not.
Key quotations
“We affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse in part.” (159 Wash. 2d at 626)
“Extrapolation is merely a mechanical extension of the economic table, and RCW 26.19.001 requires the amount of support to be based on the child’s or children’s needs, and commensurate with the parents’ income, resources, and standard of living.” (159 Wash. 2d at 626)
“Because the statute explicitly gives the trial court discretion to deviate from the basic child support obligation based on the facts of a particular case, a specific formula is neither necessary nor statutorily required to ensure the parents’ child support obligation is properly allocated.” (159 Wash. 2d at 636)
“the trial court may not use extrapolation when it exceeds the economic table in the child support schedule” (159 Wash. 2d at 637)
Factual background
Graham and Cunliffe were divorced and had two daughters who spent equal amounts of time with each parent under an alternating-week parenting plan. The State sought modification of child support after the parents' incomes changed, one child entered a new age category under the support schedule, and the prior order was more than two years old. The combined monthly net income exceeded the economic table's $7,000 limit, and the courts disagreed about whether to extrapolate from the table and whether to use the split-residential formula from In re Marriage of Arvey.
Procedural history
The parties' 1996 parenting plan provided for equal alternating-week residential time with their two children. In 2002, the State petitioned to modify child support after changes in income and the child-support schedule. A commissioner extrapolated the basic obligation above the economic table and declined to apply the Arvey formula; the trial court rejected extrapolation but applied the Arvey formula. The Court of Appeals held that Arvey did not apply to shared residential arrangements but left extrapolation to the trial court's discretion. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, affirmed the rejection of Arvey, reversed the ruling permitting discretionary extrapolation, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including recalculation of the basic child support obligation without mechanical extrapolation and consideration of any appropriate deviation under RCW 26.19.075 that is not based on the Arvey formula.