## Facts

- Diane L. Kestner and Christopher H. Clark divorced in 1995 and had one child, Nathan (born 1990).
- The custody agreement gave Kestner sole legal and primary physical custody; Clark had visitation. Kestner planned to attend graduate school in Illinois and agreed to use “best efforts” to obtain re-employment in Juneau, Alaska afterward.
- Kestner earned a master’s degree in sociology in 1997, remained in Illinois, and did not return to Juneau.
- Kestner remarried in 2000, had two additional children, and left the workforce in 2001 to stay home with the children.
- In 2004, Nathan sought to attend high school in Juneau; the court modified custody to give Clark school-year custody.
- With custody changed, Kestner became the child support obligor and sought a reduction to the $50 minimum, claiming no current income and arguing that working was not economical given childcare costs.
- Evidence showed Kestner previously earned about $21,000 annually; estimated childcare costs were about $9,000–$10,000 per year.
- Financial information indicated Kestner’s husband earned in the mid-$60,000s and the household had substantial assets; Clark asserted support was a legal duty regardless of his household finances.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court erred under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)(4) by finding Kestner voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed and imputing $25,000 in annual income for child support.
2. Whether the court abused its discretion in discovery by compelling Kestner’s tax returns and denying discovery of Clark’s fiancée’s income.
3. Whether the award of partial attorney’s fees to Clark was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Affirmed the finding that Kestner was voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed and the imputation of $25,000 annual income.
- Affirmed the resulting child support obligation of $299 per month.
- Affirmed discovery orders requiring Kestner to produce complete tax returns and limiting discovery into the finances of Clark’s fiancée.
- Affirmed the partial attorney’s fee award to Clark.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)(4), a court may impute income when a parent is voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed or underemployed, based on earning capacity rather than actual earnings.
- A parent’s duty to support a child is not reduced by later-incurred family obligations; choosing to stay home with children from a subsequent relationship does not, by itself, excuse nonpayment when the parent can work.
- Child support is tied to the child’s entitlement and is not contingent on whether the custodial parent claims financial need.
- In support litigation, trial courts have broad discretion to manage discovery; tax returns are commonly relevant to income and resources, while non-parent household income is generally outside Rule 90.3 absent a showing it is necessary to assess manipulation or concealment.
- Attorney’s fees in domestic relations matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an award may reflect relative success and the circumstances shown in the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld imputing income to a parent who chose to remain unemployed despite an ability to work, emphasized that a child’s right to support is independent of the custodial parent’s financial comfort, and found no abuse of discretion in the related discovery limits or the partial fee award.


Kestner v. Clark, 182 P.3d 1117 (Alaska 2008)