## Facts

- Shantrece Laniece Belmar had one prior-born child from a previous relationship; that child’s father was incarcerated and did not pay child support.
- Belmar and Charles Alex Kimbrough had two children (born 1994 and 1995).
- In 1995, Kimbrough was adjudicated the father in a paternity action and ordered to pay $62.25 per week in child support.
- After the 1995 order, Kimbrough had a later-born child with another partner; that child lived with Kimbrough.
- In 2005, Belmar moved to increase support based on child-care costs and health-care coverage.
- In recalculating support under Kentucky’s guidelines, the trial court applied KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4) to deduct an imputed child-support amount from Belmar’s gross income for her prior-born child.
- The court deducted $413 from Belmar’s gross income as imputed support for the prior-born child, but made no comparable deduction from Kimbrough’s income for his later-born child because the statute limited the deduction to prior-born children.
- The recalculation increased Kimbrough’s support obligation for the two children with Belmar to $141.52 per week.

## Issues

1. Whether KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4), which permits an imputed-support deduction for a parent’s prior-born children but not for later-born children, violates federal or state equal protection guarantees.
2. Whether applying KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4) to increase Kimbrough’s support obligation violated due process because the increase allegedly flowed from the prior-born child’s father not paying support.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the order increasing Kimbrough’s child support and the denial of his CR 59.05 motion.
- The court held KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4) does not violate equal protection under rational-basis review.
- The court held the statute’s application did not violate due process.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are presumed constitutional; the challenger bears a heavy burden to show a classification is arbitrary and lacks a rational basis.
- Child-support guideline provisions allocating financial responsibility among multiple family obligations are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny when no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated.
- Treating prior-born and later-born children differently in guideline calculations can be rational where the legislature seeks to account for preexisting support responsibilities while avoiding reduction of support for existing children based on obligations voluntarily assumed later.
- An imputed-support deduction within a guideline formula is a computational adjustment to parental income, not an order requiring the other parent to pay support for the prior-born child.
- Due process is not violated where the support order results from application of a valid statute through ordinary adjudicative procedures (notice and opportunity to be heard) and the result is not arbitrary.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Kentucky’s guideline provision allowing an imputed-support deduction for a parent’s prior-born child, concluding the classification had a rational policy basis and that applying the provision to increase support for the children in the case did not deprive the obligor parent of due process.


Kimbrough v. Commonwealth ex rel. Child Support Div. ex rel. Belmar, 215 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)