No. 24328-1-III.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three.
May 23, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 01-3-00112-9, Donald W. Schacht, J., entered July 5, 2005.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Kato and Kulik, JJ.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Ronald Kurt McAdams, McAdams Ponti Wernette, 103 E Poplar St, Walla Walla, WA 99362-3028.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Christopher Marti Constantine, of Counsel Inc PS, PO Box 7125, Tacoma, WA 98406-0125.
Michael Sherman Mitchell, Attorney at Law, 129 W Main St, Walla Walla, WA 99362-2817.
BROWN, J.
After the trial court dissolved Delmar L. Gregory and Sharon C. Gregory’s (now Stiles) marriage, the court ordered Mr. Gregory to pay $277 monthly child support for the parties’ daughter, Kayla. On modification, the court increased child support using the standard calculation method to $512 per month, declining to apply a deviation based upon the whole family child support calculation method. Because the trial court acted within its discretion when considering the circumstances of this blended family, we affirm.
FACTS
In 2001, Mr. Gregory was ordered to pay $277 per month in child support for Kayla. Ms. Stiles is the primary residential parent. Ms. Stiles moved to adjust child support in February 2005 based on an increase in the parties’ incomes.
The parties’ combined monthly net income was over $7,000. Both parties have remarried. Mr. Gregory has one child from a previous marriage, Amanda, for whom he pays $530 per month in child support. He has a child with his new wife. Mr. Gregory’s new wife has two children and receives approximately $1,008 per month in child support.
Ms. Stiles has two children from a previous marriage, one with her and one with their father; no support is paid or received. Ms. Stiles has one child with her new husband.
Mr. Gregory asked the court to use the whole family method to calculate child support for Kayla, taking into consideration the five children he supports. The trial court reasoned if it accepted Mr. Gregory’s argument, Kayla would receive $163 per month while his other children would receive an average of $512 per month. Further, Mr. Gregory’s net monthly income would be $4,492, while Ms. Stiles’ net monthly income would be $4,036.
The court ordered Mr. Gregory to pay $512 per month in child support for Kayla:
The deviation sought by [Mr. Gregory] was denied because the Court has discretion to grant or deny [Mr. Gregory’s] request for whole family method calculation. When there are more children from other relationships in one or both of the parties’ families, the Court should determine a child support amount that is proportional and fair to all of the children. The Court must take into consideration the total circumstances of both parents. To order a while [sic] family deviation in this case would result in a support calculation grossly unfair to Kayla.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 107 — Finding of Fact 3.8.
Mr. Gregory unsuccessfully requested reconsideration. The court reiterated its reasons for using the standard calculation method for child support. Mr. Gregory appealed.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by abusing its discretion in not applying the whole family child support method when ordering Mr. Gregory to pay $512 per month in child support and instead, applying the standard calculation method.
Assigning error to Finding of Fact 3.8, Mr. Gregory argues the court improperly compared Kayla’s support to that of Mr. Gregory’s other children in finding Kayla’s amount was grossly unfair rather than fair and proportionate and compared the parties’ incomes in finding the whole family method would unfairly favor Mr. Gregory.
In setting child support, the court must (1) compute the parents’ total income, (2) determine the standard child support level from the economic table, (3) decide whether to deviate from the standard calculation based on specific statutory factors, and (4) allocate the child support obligation to each parent based on his or her share of the combined net income. In re Marriage of Maples, 78 Wn. App. 696, 700, 899 P.2d 1 (1995). We review this process for abuse of discretion, affirming the trial court’s decision unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion. In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d 772, 776, 791 P.2d 519 (1990). `In considering appeals regarding the setting of child support we have relied on the rule that trial court decisions in dissolution proceedings will seldom be changed on appeal.’ Id.
Under RCW 26.19.035(2), a child support order must be supported by written findings, including `reasons for denial of a party’s request for deviation from the standard calculation.’ Here, the trial court knew it had discretion to use the whole family child support method, but its written findings of fact explain why it denied Mr. Gregory’s request to deviate from the standard child support calculation.
The whole family child support approach is a `method for guidance in deviating’ from the standard calculation. In re Marriage of Bell, 101 Wn. App. 366, 375, 4 P.3d 849 (2000). Courts are not required to use the whole family method. Id. at 375-76.
RCW 26.19.075 gives the standards for deviating from the standard child support calculation. It requires the court to consider the `total circumstances of both households’ and `when parents have children from other relationships.’ RCW 26.19.075(1)(e)(iv). Additionally, the court must consider `all income and resources of the parties before the court, new spouses, and other adults in the households shall be disclosed and considered as provided in this section.’ RCW 26.19.075(2).
The trial court considered the RCW 26.19.075 standards and properly exercised its discretion in denying Mr. Gregory’s request for a deviation based on a whole family calculation. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Mr. Gregory’s other children receive an average of $512 per month in support and that the $163 proposed by Mr. Gregory would be grossly unfair to Kayla rather than fair and proportionate. Also, the evidence in the record shows Mr. Gregory’s net monthly income would be unfairly higher than Ms. Stiles’ if he only paid $163 per month. Because tenable reasons exist for the trial court’s order, the court did not abuse its discretion. An appellate court cannot reweigh the factors reasonably considered by the trial court in making its decision.
Citing RAP 18.1 and RCW 26.09.140, Ms. Stiles requests reasonable attorney fees on appeal. In exercising our discretion under RCW 26.09.140, we consider `the arguable merit of the issues on appeal and the financial resources of the respective parties.’ In re Marriage of Griffin, 114 Wn.2d at 779. In order for us to consider their financial resources, they must file financial declarations no later than 10 days before oral argument. RAP 18.1(c). Neither has done that here, so we decline Ms. Stiles’ request.
Ms. Stiles also asks for costs on appeal under RAP 14.1 and 14.2. Under RAP 14.2, we may award costs to the prevailing party. Since Ms. Stiles prevailed, she is entitled to those costs allowed under RAP 14.3.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.04.060.
KATO, J. and KULIK, J., Concur.