Rule 90.3(d)(2) provides that the court also allocate reasonable health expenses not covered by insurance. The rule requires the party who did not obtain the health care to reimburse the other party within 30 days of receiving the necessary paperwork. The paperwork should include the medical bill, payment verification, and, if medical insurance applies, an insurance statement indicating any uncovered health care expenses. The rule should be read to require prepayment of allowable uncovered medical cost when prepayment is required by the health care provider. The rule provides that a reasonable uncovered expense in excess of $5,000 will be addressed by the court when the expense arises.

Rule 90.3(d)(2) provides that the court also allocate reasonable health expenses not covered by insurance. The rule requires the party who did not obtain the health care to reimburse the other party within 30 days of receiving the necessary paperwork. The paperwork should include the medical bill, payment verification, and, if medical insurance applies, an insurance statement indicating any uncovered health care expenses. The rule should be read to require prepayment of allowable uncovered medical cost when prepayment is required by the health care provider. The rule provides that a reasonable uncovered expense in excess of $5,000 will be addressed by the court when the expense arises.
C. Definition of Health Care Expenses
Paragraph (f) defines health care expenses to include medical, dental, vision and mental health counseling expenses.

VIII. CHILD SUPPORT AFFIDAVIT AND

DOCUMENTATION

Each parent in a proceeding involving a determination of child support must provide the court with an income statement under oath. The rule also requires that the income statement of a parent be verified with documentation of current and past income. Suitable documentation of earnings might include paystubs, employer statements, or copies of federal tax returns. The income statement, with documentation, must be filed with the party's first pleading in the action. This first pleading is the dissolution petition in a dissolution, the complaint or answer in a divorce, the custody petition or response in a child custody case under AS 25.20.060, or the motion or opposition in a motion to modify child support or motion to change custody. The court may impose sanctions on a party who does not timely file the income statement with appropriate documentation. The rule repeats language set out in Civil Rule 95(a). In a default case the court must decide support on the best available information, but should require the present party to make reasonable efforts to obtain reasonably accurate information.

IX. TRAVEL EXPENSES

The court may review the circumstances of each case, including the award of support, to determine how to allocate any travel expenses that are necessary to exercise visitation. This allocation should generally be done on a percentage basis because the actual costs may not be known or may change. The court should take care that its allocation of these expenses does not interfere with the custodial parent's ability to provide the basic necessities for the children. Such a basic level of support must be placed above visitation if sufficient funds are not available for both.

X. MODIFICATION

Alaska law allows the modification of support orders upon a material change in circumstances. A significant amendment to Rule 90.3 constitutes a material change in circumstances pursuant to AS 25.24.170(b). 90.3(b) presumptively defines a material change in circumstances, whether based on a change in the parties' incomes or a significant amendment to the rule, as whenever the change would result in an increase or decrease of support under the rule of at least 15%.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, P.L. 99-509, Section 9103(a) (the Bradley Amendment), prohibits retroactive modification of child support arrearages. Rule 90.3(h)(2) is intended to restate this prohibition, including the exception allowed by federal law for modification during the pendency of a modification motion. Pursuant to this rule, the notice of petition for modification sent by the Child Support Enforcement Division triggers the legal process for modification of child support awards and thus an increase or decrease of support back to the date of this notice does not constitute retroactive modification.
The prohibition against retroactive modification limits both requested decreases and increases in child support. See Prohibition of Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages, 54 Fed. Reg. 15,763 (1989). Thus, either the custodial or the obligor parent should promptly apply for a modification of child support when a material change in circumstances occurs.
See Section VI(B)(2) of the commentary as to the extent support of a "subsequent" family may be used as a defense to a modification action to increase child support.

XI. STATE CUSTODY

If the state takes custody of all of a parent's children, child support is calculated in the same way as it would be calculated in other cases. In other words, support is equal to the parent's adjusted annual income multiplied by the relevant percentage in paragraph (a)(2) based on the number of children.
However, this basic calculation does not work when the state takes custody of only some of a parent's children. Therefore paragraph (b) of the rule, including the 1.5 multiplier in (b)(3), does not apply. In this case, the rule provides that the total support calculation (as calculated for the total number of the parent's children) be reduced to only the proportion of the parent's children of whom the state is taking custody. For example, the state might take custody of two of a parent's three children. Support would be calculated as the parent's adjusted annual income, multiplied by .33 (the relevant percentage for three children), multiplied by 2/3 (the state has custody of two of the parent's three children). Note that the calculation only takes into account children which are either in state custody, substantially supported by the parent or living with the parent. A child of the parent, for example, living with a relative without substantial support would not be counted in the above calculation.
Note that the deduction for child support paid for prior children specified in paragraph (a)(1)(B) of the rule would still apply in calculating annual adjusted income. The deduction for prior children living with the parent in (a)(1)(C) would not apply because these children are already taken into account as children living with the parent.

XII. SUPPORT ORDER FORMS

Paragraph (j) was formerly Civil Rule 67(b).

These Court Rules were automatically converted to HTML (Hyper-Text Markup Language) format from electronic files provided by the Alaska Court System. Every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, but neither Touch N' Go Systems, Inc., The Alaska Legal Resource Center, nor the Law Offices of James B. Gottstein are responsible for their accuracy or for any damages arising out of any possible inaccuracy. If any mistakes are found, please let us know at one of the addresses listed below.

Return to Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. Home Page.

Comments to touchngo@touchngo.com

(907) 274-7686
406 G Street Suite, 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
fax (907) 333-5869

Please sign our Guest Book

Last Modified 7/14/1999