Child Support Deviations are Discretionary

HAMLIN v. RAMEY

Court of Appeals

April 4, 2008

Disposition: Judgment Affirmed

Case History: The original order legitimating the minor child of Kristin Ramey and Damian Hamlin was entered by the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. Custody, visitation and other related matters were included in the consent order. Following the consent order, the court determined the amount of child support to be paid to Ms. Ramey, by Mr. Hamlin, on a monthly basis.

Questions Raised on Appeal: Mr. Hamlin appealed the court's decision on the presumptive amount of child support awarded to Ms. Ramey. He believed that the court should have granted a deviation based upon his increased parenting time. The court determined that Mr. Hamlin's annual parenting time was approximately 35.8%. Because Mr. Hamlin's annual percentage of parenting time is more than that of the "normal" amount on which the guidelines are based, he believed that he should have been entitled to a downward deviation from the presumptive amount of child support.

Court Ruling: Although a deviation of child support can include a parenting time adjustment and the presumptive amount calculated by guidelines is controvertible, the courts primarily consider the best interest of the child. The child support guidelines are based on the conjecture that both parents should contribute financially to the support of their children in the same proportion as the parent's income relates to the total sum of the parent's income without considering the amount of time each parent spends with the child. A deviation from the presumptive amount is allowed, but only when the child resides with both parents equally or when special circumstances exist and the deviation would serve the best interest of the child.

The court found that Mr. Hamlin did not prove a special circumstance which made his presumptive amount of child support excessive, nor did he prove that deviating from the presumptive amount would be in the best interest of the child. The argument made by Mr. Hamlin was that in which he would incur additional expenses related to the child, as a result of his increased parenting time. However, the court found that Mr. Hamlin did not specify what the incurred expenses would be. 

Further, the Court upheld the presumptive amount of child support specified by the trial court given that the trial court did not abuse its power in initially ordering said amount of child support from Mr. Hamlin.  The trial court did not deviate the amount of child support based on parenting time and their reasoning was not explicitly required for such an order.  For, if deviations are applicable to a child support order, the reasons for deviation must be stated.  However, if deviations are not applicable, there is no reasoning required to be produced by the trial court according to the child support statute.