In the Matter of Vivian Silva and Robert Silva
188 A.3d 285 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court cannot deviate from statutory child support guidelines in a shared parenting arrangement unless it makes specific, written findings explaining the economic consequences of the deviation and why applying the standard guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
Facts:
- Vivian Silva and Robert Silva, a married couple with two children, operated a bed and breakfast out of their marital home.
- The parties established a '529 account' for their daughter's education, with Robert Silva as the account holder.
- During the pendency of their divorce, Robert Silva withdrew approximately half of the funds from the 529 account, claiming he was unable to meet his ongoing financial expenses.
- Vivian Silva's parents provided funds to the couple which were considered an 'investment in the property,' but there was no documentation indicating it was a formal loan with repayment terms.
- In their divorce, the parties agreed to a parenting plan with 'equal or approximately equal residential responsibility' for their two children.
- Vivian Silva was awarded the marital home and business, but her projected adjusted gross monthly income with the reduced child support ($2,872) was significantly less than her estimated monthly expenses ($4,370).
- Robert Silva's projected adjusted gross monthly income after paying the reduced support obligation was $6,913, more than double Vivian Silva's income.
Procedural Posture:
- Vivian Silva and Robert Silva were parties to a divorce action in the New Hampshire Circuit Court (trial court).
- The trial court granted the divorce, divided the marital assets, and approved an agreed-upon parenting plan.
- Initially, the court entered a temporary Uniform Support Order requiring Robert Silva to pay full child support.
- After a final child support hearing, the trial court issued a final order that deviated downward from the child support guidelines, significantly reducing Robert Silva's monthly obligation.
- Vivian Silva filed motions to reconsider the property distribution and the final child support order, both of which the trial court denied.
- Vivian Silva (as petitioner/appellant) appealed the trial court's orders to the New Hampshire Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit a legal error by deviating downward from the statutory child support guidelines based on a shared parenting schedule without making sufficient written findings that explain the economic necessity and fairness of the deviation?
Opinions:
Majority - Bassett, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by deviating from statutory child support guidelines in a shared parenting arrangement without making sufficient written findings that demonstrate why the deviation is necessary to avoid an unjust or inappropriate result. The court found that the trial court's justification for the downward deviation was insufficient as a matter of law. While a shared parenting schedule can be a 'special circumstance' under RSA 458-C:5, it alone is not grounds for an adjustment. The trial court must analyze the specific statutory factors, including the apportionment of variable expenses, any reduction in the obligee's fixed costs, and the lower-earning parent's ability to provide a similar lifestyle for the children. Here, the trial court failed on all three grounds: it did not analyze the economic consequences of the expense apportionment, it confused variable and fixed costs, and it ignored the significant income disparity that would prevent the petitioner from maintaining a comparable standard of living for the children. The court's findings must explicitly connect the special circumstances to the economic realities of the parties to justify why adherence to the guidelines would be unjust.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for deviating from statutory child support guidelines in New Hampshire, particularly in cases of shared parenting. It clarifies that a trial court's discretion is not unfettered; judges must conduct a detailed economic analysis and articulate specific, fact-based reasons why the guideline amount is unjust. The ruling prevents courts from using an equal parenting schedule as an automatic basis for reducing child support, instead requiring a focus on the actual financial impact on each household and the best interests of the child. This precedent ensures greater consistency and predictability in child support orders and protects the standard of living for children in the lower-earning parent's home.
Unlock the full brief for In the Matter of Vivian Silva and Robert Silva