## Facts

- George Hasty and Lucinda Hasty divorced in 1982; Lucinda received custody of their two children, and George was ordered to pay $150 per month per minor child.
- After the divorce, George had additional children in subsequent marriages and incurred child-support obligations for at least one child not in his custody; another child lived with him.
- When the older child from the first marriage reached majority, Lucinda petitioned to increase support for the remaining minor child under Wyoming’s then-new child support guidelines.
- George argued the court should account for his obligations to his other minor children when applying the guideline schedule and when determining whether deviation was warranted.
- A district court commissioner applied the guideline schedule as if only one child existed in the case and recommended increasing support for that child to $745 per month.
- The district court adopted the recommendation, stating George’s position did not fit within deviation factors and that it had “no choice but to apply the guidelines” without considering the other children.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming’s child support guidelines permit consideration of an obligor’s support obligations to other minor children as a factor supporting deviation from the presumptive guideline amount.
2. Whether the district court erred and abused its discretion by treating the guideline amount as effectively mandatory and refusing to consider the obligor’s other-child obligations.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the child-support modification order and remanded.
- The court held the guidelines establish a rebuttable presumption, not an inflexible mandate.
- The district court committed legal error by concluding it lacked authority to consider George’s obligations to other minor children within the statutory deviation framework.
- Because the district court’s refusal to consider a potentially relevant deviation factor rested on a mistaken view of its authority, it abused its discretion.
- On remand, the district court was to reconsider modification consistent with the guidelines’ rebuttable nature and the availability of deviation when statutory factors apply.

## Legal Principles

- Child-support guideline amounts are rebuttably presumed correct; courts must begin with the guideline calculation but may deviate when statutory factors support doing so.
- A court errs when it converts a rebuttable presumption into an irrebuttable rule by declaring it has “no choice” but to apply the guideline amount.
- An obligor’s legal responsibilities to support other minor children may be considered within the statutory deviation analysis.
- A misapprehension of the scope of a court’s discretion—leading to refusal to consider a legally relevant factor—constitutes an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court required trial courts to treat guideline support amounts as presumptive rather than mandatory and to consider an obligor’s support obligations to other minor children when deciding whether deviation from the presumptive amount is justified.


Hasty v. Hasty, 828 P.2d 94 (Wyo. 1992)