Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

M and F are the parents of a son, now seven years old. M has no other children. f has a thirteen-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. M filed a parental rights action seeking child support for their son. The court ordered shared parental rights and responsibilities. In April 2006, the court held a hearing on the child support issue. M was working as a dental assistant and earning $13.50 per hour. M works approximately thirty-three to thirty-five hours per week. She then takes her son to school on Friday, a twenty-eight-mile trip, and typically volunteers at the school that day. M's employer covers her health insurance costs. M rents a small single-family home that is owned by her parents. She pays $1000 per month in rent. Her parents previously rented the home for $1300 per month. F lives rent-free in a home owned by his employer, Bell Farms, which is his family's corporation. The fair rental value of the property was $900 to $1000 per month, although Bell claimed that it is much less. The corporation owns several vehicles that F uses for personal purposes. The corporation also pays most of his expenses, including his utility bills and insurance. F's employer also pays for his children's health insurance. F argued that the court should impute additional income to M for: (1) the difference between her rent and the rent charged the prior tenant; (2) the value of the health insurance that M's employer pays for her; and (3) voluntary underemployment by not working on Friday. The court imputed M’s income to $32,802.00 and F’s income to $48,516.00. The court ordered F to pay $28.46 per week in child support. M appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.