## Facts

- Donald R. Downing (father) and Sharon A. Downing (mother) divorced in 1992; Sharon received sole custody of their two children.
- The dissolution decree required Donald to pay $400 per week in child support and all health-care costs for the children.
- In 1994, after proceedings addressing increased needs and income, the trial court set Donald’s child support at $2,112 per month (of a $2,200 total obligation) because the parties’ income exceeded the guideline table and the children had extraordinary expenses.
- In 1998–1999, Sharon moved to increase child support based on a large rise in Donald’s income; the Domestic Relations Commissioner found Donald’s monthly income had increased by about $40,000 and that combined parental income far exceeded the guideline table maximum.
- The commissioner used a mathematical projection (applying a 4% rate derived from changes near the top of the guideline chart) and recommended an increase.
- On March 31, 1999, the Jefferson Family Court increased Donald’s support from $2,112 per month to $3,475 per month.
- Donald later sought a reduction based on an asserted income decrease; on November 17, 1999, the family court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. When combined parental income exceeds Kentucky’s child support guideline table maximum, may a trial court set support primarily by mathematically extrapolating the guidelines without adequate findings on the children’s reasonable needs and the parents’ standard of living?
2. Were the trial court’s factual findings regarding Donald’s income clearly erroneous?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Donald’s motion to reduce child support after his claimed income decrease?

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s income findings as not clearly erroneous.
- The court reversed the child support amount set by the March 31, 1999 order, holding the trial court abused its discretion by giving excessive weight to a mathematical projection of the guidelines without sufficient findings on other relevant factors.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, requiring additional hearing and specific findings on the children’s needs and the parents’ standard of living, and a recalculation consistent with those findings.
- The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Kentucky child support guidelines create a rebuttable presumption; deviation requires specific findings that guideline application would be unjust or inappropriate.
- Where combined parental income exceeds the guideline table, the court must exercise discretion and base support on evidence, including the children’s reasonable needs and the parents’ standard of living.
- Mathematical extrapolation of the guideline table may be considered as one factor in high-income cases, but reliance that effectively displaces required fact-based findings is an abuse of discretion.
- Child support must be set in an amount reasonably and rationally related to the realistic needs of the children; a “share the wealth” approach is improper where it is not anchored to children’s needs.

## Conclusion

The court held that high-income child support awards cannot be driven mainly by a projected percentage from the guideline table; the trial court must make specific, evidence-based findings on the children’s reasonable needs and the parents’ standard of living, while the trial court’s income findings were upheld and the matter was remanded for recalculation.


Downing v. Downing, 45 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001)