## Facts

- DeAngelo Seay (father) and Andrea Thomas (mother) were never married and had three minor children.
- Seay filed an action in Iowa district court seeking a determination of custody and child support.
- The district court awarded the parties joint physical care and set a parenting schedule under which the children lived with Thomas about 206 days per year and with Seay about 158 days per year.
- The district court ordered Seay to pay Thomas $248 per month in child support.
- Seay appealed, arguing the district court should have calculated child support using the “offset” approach set out in Iowa Court Rule 9.14 for joint physical care.
- Thomas cross-appealed, arguing Rule 9.14’s offset method did not apply because the parenting time was not equal and contending the $248 award was too low.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review (certiorari).

## Issues

1. When a court awards joint physical care, must child support be calculated using Iowa Court Rule 9.14’s offset method even if the parents do not have an equal number of overnights?
2. If the offset calculation is the starting point, may a court order a different amount, and what must the court do to justify that result?

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held that Rule 9.14 applies when joint physical care is awarded and is not limited to arrangements with an exactly equal division of days.
- The court concluded the district court erred by setting support without first applying the Rule 9.14 offset calculation for joint physical care.
- The court reversed the child-support award and remanded for recalculation using the offset method, with any departure from the guideline amount requiring adequate findings.
- The joint physical care arrangement was left in place; the remand focused on recalculating support under the correct guideline framework.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa’s child-support guidelines treat joint physical care as a distinct custodial arrangement for support-calculation purposes.
- In joint physical care cases, Rule 9.14 calls for an “offset” calculation: compute each parent’s guideline obligation as if the other parent had primary physical care, then subtract the smaller obligation from the larger and order payment of the difference by the higher-obligation parent.
- A modest imbalance in the number of overnights does not prevent an award from qualifying as joint physical care for purposes of applying Rule 9.14.
- The guideline amount produced by Rule 9.14 is presumed correct, but the presumption can be overcome; if a court sets a different amount, it must make specific findings explaining why the guideline result would be unjust or inappropriate in the case.

## Conclusion

Because the district court expressly awarded joint physical care, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that child support had to be calculated using Rule 9.14’s offset method even though Thomas had more parenting days than Seay. The court reversed the $248 monthly support order and remanded for a recalculation using the offset approach, allowing a different amount only if supported by explicit reasons in the record.


In re Seay, 746 N.W.2d 833 (2008)