## Facts

- Kendal J. Eklund and Linda L. Eklund married in 1976 and divorced in 1988; Kendal had adopted Linda’s child Larry, and the parties also had a child, Jeremy.
- The divorce judgment required Kendal to pay $300 per month per child ($600 total) as child support.
- When Larry turned 18, Kendal stopped paying support for Larry and continued paying $300 per month for Jeremy.
- Linda sought an increase for Jeremy, but the district court denied the request for failure to show a significant change of circumstances.
- In 1992, the Minot Regional Child Support Enforcement Unit moved on Linda’s behalf to increase support for Jeremy under the guidelines; the district court again denied the motion, concluding no change of circumstances was shown and reasoning the review process did not apply to the order at issue.
- After statutory amendments and revised child-support guidelines, the Unit moved in 1994 to increase Kendal’s support obligation for Jeremy to $572 per month, consistent with the guidelines.
- The district court granted the increase, concluding the statutory basis for its earlier denials had been materially modified, and rejecting Kendal’s procedural and constitutional objections.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Human Services had statutory authority to promulgate the child-support guidelines applied to increase the obligor’s support, and whether the guidelines were invalid as an improper exercise or delegation of legislative power.
2. Whether legislative committee objections to administrative rules affected the validity of the promulgated child-support guidelines.
3. Whether a regional child support enforcement unit had statutory authority to move to modify child support on behalf of the custodial parent.
4. Whether a child-support modification to the guideline amount required an independent showing of a material change of circumstances after the statutory and guideline revisions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the order increasing Kendal’s monthly child support for Jeremy from $300 to $572.
- The court held the Department of Human Services acted within its statutory authority to establish and revise child-support guidelines, and the guidelines were valid.
- The court declined to treat legislative committee objections as nullifying duly promulgated guidelines.
- The court held the child support enforcement unit had authority to seek modification on the custodial parent’s behalf under the amended statutory scheme.
- The court agreed that, under the revised statutes and guidelines, the court could adjust support to the guideline amount without requiring a separate, traditional showing of changed circumstances beyond what was reflected in the guideline calculation and authorized review process.

## Legal Principles

- When the legislature directs an agency to establish and periodically revise child-support guidelines that courts must use, the agency’s guideline choices are valid if within the statutory grant, even if the statute does not mandate a specific economic model.
- Administrative rules duly adopted under statutory authority are not invalidated merely because a legislative committee objects to them; separation-of-powers concerns limit committee mechanisms that function as rule vetoes without full legislative action.
- A child support enforcement unit may have statutory authority to initiate or participate in child-support modification proceedings on behalf of a custodial parent when the governing statutes authorize that role.
- Statutory and guideline revisions authorizing periodic review and guideline-based recalculation can permit modification to the guideline amount without requiring an additional, independent showing of a material change of circumstances under the prior, stricter standard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a guideline-based increase in child support, concluding the guidelines were validly promulgated under statutory authority, committee objections did not defeat their effect, the enforcement unit could seek modification for the custodial parent, and the revised scheme allowed adjustment to the guideline amount without a separate traditional change-in-circumstances showing.


Eklund v. Eklund, 538 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 1995)