Court: Arizona Supreme Court; January 31, 1956; Arizona; State Supreme Court
On September 11, 1948, Carol Neal Roberts was granted a divorce from James R. Malott, Jr., and awarded custody of their two children, with Malott ordered to pay $150 monthly for their support. He was also mandated to purchase U.S. Defense Bonds for the children and cover any extraordinary medical expenses, maintaining life insurance policies with the children as beneficiaries. In June 1954, Roberts sought to modify the support amount to $250 per month per child. The court increased the support to $100 per child, and Roberts was awarded $200 for attorney fees. Roberts appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in setting these amounts. The appellate court will evaluate whether the trial court's decision was supported by competent evidence, taking the strongest view in favor of the appellee. Key evidence was presented by Roberts regarding the children's needs, detailing their monthly expenses, which included housing, clothing, and transportation costs.
Dancing and music lessons were priced at $48.50 per month, while magazines, parties, trip equipment, and summer camp costs were $10.50 per month each. School lunches were $16 per month, entertainment costs were $31 per month, and medical and dental expenses amounted to $10 per month. These expenses totaled $438.65 monthly for the care of two children, excluding additional costs like birthday parties and gifts. The father’s income increased from $10,910.26 in 1948 to an average of $17,623.36 over the following five years. Under section 27-811, A.C.A. 1939, the court can amend support payments based on the parents' circumstances and the children's welfare. The trial court determined that the father's improved financial status justified only a $25 per month increase in support per child. The court emphasized the trial judge's discretion in determining children's best interests and noted that evidence supported the conclusion that $200 monthly for both children was appropriate. The appellate court agreed not to replace the trial judge's judgment unless clear errors were evident. Regarding attorney's fees, the trial court awarded only $200, which was deemed inadequate given the attorney's extensive work. The appellate court modified the fee to $500 while affirming the support order. The majority opinion was supported by several judges, but Chief Justice La Prade partially dissented regarding the child support amount.
The father has a net annual income of approximately $15,500, from which he pays $2,400 for child support and $750 for bonds and insurance, resulting in a remaining income of $12,350. Evidence indicates that the mother’s current husband, a school teacher, is significantly contributing to the children's upbringing. The father's financial contributions are insufficient to cover essential living expenses such as housing, utilities, food, clothing, and medical care for his children.
The family lives in a modest home financed through a contract, with a monthly payment of $145, while the stepfather earns $466 per month. They own two aging cars, which will eventually need replacing. Legal precedent indicates that a father's obligation includes providing a suitable living environment, food, clothing, education, and medical care according to his means and the children’s needs.
The trial court's determination of child support is deemed inadequate, given the increasing needs of the children and lack of evidence from the father to contest these needs. The standard of reasonableness for support is influenced by both the father’s capacity to pay and the necessities of the children. Citing a similar case, the court found that awarding only $2,400 per year is unreasonable compared to the father’s substantial income needs. The trial judge is criticized for inadequately assessing both child support and attorney fees, leading to a recommendation that the father should contribute at least $350 per month for child support, alongside any additional benefits.
