2005-380, IN THE MATTER OF NANCY BAKER AND ROBERT WINKLER

Corning Stock options and Merrill Lynch payroll stock deduction amount.”

unequal division of the assets of the parties including but not limited to permanent stipulation stated that “[t]his responsibility is based upon the for the costs of [the children] obtaining their bachelors degrees.” The

Fernald, Taft, Falby & Little, P.A.

No. 2005-380 Cheshire

January 2002, and were incorporated into the decree of divorce. Neither party

their two children. Permanent stipulations were signed by the parties in The parties divorced in February 2002 and received joint legal custody of

affirm.

support obligation for his minor child under the child support guidelines. We child’s college education expenses from his gross income before calculating his that the trial court erred in failing to subtract his obligation to pay his adult Bragdon & Berkson, P.C.

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

Baker (mother), for modification of child support. On appeal, the father argues Superior Court (Sullivan, J.) granting the petition of the respondent, Nancy HICKS, J. The petitioner, Robert Winkler (father), appeals an order of the

Lachman on the brief, and Mr. Bragdon orally), for the respondent. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: , of Keene (Stephen B. Bragdon and Susan

the brief and orally), for the petitioner.

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as support awards. In the Matter of Plaisted & Plaisted p. 2 458-C, and establish a uniform system to determine the amount of child

New Hampshire’s child support guidelines are codified in RSA chapter

because it was made part of the parties’ permanent stipulation. represents “court-ordered support” within the meaning of RSA 458-C:2, I(a) I(a) (2004). Specifically, he argues that the amount he is paying for college

avoid an unjust or inappropriate result. RSA 458-C:4, II (2004); Giles v. Giles

should have been deducted from his gross income pursuant to RSA 458-C:2,

pursuant to RSA 458-C:5 justifies adjusting the child support guidelines to does so, it must make a written finding as to why a special circumstance expenses of a natural or adopted child,” RSA 458-C:5, I(i). If the trial court

monthly payment he was making for his older daughter to attend college On appeal, the father argues that, in calculating child support, the

“special circumstances.” In the Matter of Barrett & Coyne the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate because of from the guidelines when it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that

providing for the voluntary or court-ordered postsecondary educational

whole. Snedeker v. Snedeker

deducted from his gross income. The trial court disagreed.

(2004). The presumption may be overcome and the trial court may deviate

circumstances, such as the “economic consequences to either party of the application of the child support guidelines in light of certain special Under RSA 458-C:5, I (2004) (amended 2005), the trial court may adjust intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a

older daughter constituted court-ordered support, and therefore should be He contended that the amount he was paying for the college education of his defined in RSA chapter 458-C as his gross income less “court-ordered support.”

under the guidelines is the correct amount of child support. RSA 458-C:4, II There is a rebuttable presumption that a child support award calculated

In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the final arbiter of the

support calculation should be based upon his adjusted gross income, which is

orders modifying an existing support order. RSA 458-C:4, I (2004).

(2004).

for modification seeking child support. The father argued that the child her senior year of high school. In September 2004, the mother filed a petition residing with her father, decided she would prefer to reside with her mother for

(2003). The guidelines “shall be applied in all child support cases,” including

In late summer of 2004, the parties’ younger daughter, who had been p. 3 Affirmed

the trial court’s interpretation of RSA 458-C:2, I(a), we affirm. guidelines pursuant to RSA 458-C:5. Therefore, having found no legal error in exercised its discretion by declining to deviate from the child support

458-C:5, I(i). The father does not argue that the trial court unsustainably

circumstances that may justify a deviation from the support guidelines. RSA educational expenses of a natural or adopted child” by treating them as special either party of providing for the voluntary or court-ordered postsecondary

Furthermore, the legislature addressed the “economic consequences to

See

concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ.,

is consistent with other jurisdictions’ interpretation of child support guidelines.

consideration; therefore, applying the rationale in Crowe contemporaneously ordered alimony in determining child support. In the In this case, both children are part of the same case specifically under held that this provision was ambiguous regarding the timing of a deduction for support actually paid to others, for adults or children.” We have previously maintenance. Id initial consideration,” before determining the amount awarded for adult that supporting children is a priority and therefore child support should be the 971 S.W.2d 386, 392 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Marriage of Potts, 696 N.E.2d 1263, 1266 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998); Young v. Young, Driscoll v. Driscoll, 414 N.W.2d 441, 445 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); In re

deduction in RSA 458-C:2, I(a) is not available to the father. Our interpretation

. at 224-25. the child support guidelines, of “[c]ourt-ordered or administratively ordered

comports with the policy considerations behind the child support guidelines – Id. at 224 (emphasis added). We also said that “[o]ur reading of the statute consideration, such as former spouses and children from former marriages.” obligations paid to persons other than those in the case specifically under provision allows a deduction for pre-existing spousal or child support Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 224 (2002). We stated, “[T]he ordinary meanings to words used. Id language found in the statute, and where possible, we ascribe the plain and

RSA 458-C:2, I(a) allows a deduction from gross income, for purposes of

Watterworth & Watterworth, 149 N.H. 442, 445 (2003). context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. In the Matter of Routhier, 143 N.H. 404, 406 (1999). Furthermore, we interpret statutes in the look beyond the statute itself to determine its meaning. See Appeal of ambiguous or where more than one reasonable interpretation exists, we must