## Facts

- Judith Ann Smith (Mother) and Stephen Michael Smith (Father) divorced, and the decree awarded Mother custody of their only child and ordered Father to pay monthly child support.
- Mother later sought a modification increasing child support after Father’s income rose substantially.
- Mother submitted evidence that the child’s monthly expenses totaled $3,355.90.
- At the time of the modification hearing, Father’s monthly income was $46,015 and Mother’s monthly income was $6,419, for a combined monthly income of $52,434.
- Oklahoma’s child-support schedule capped the guideline table at $15,000 combined monthly income and did not provide a formula above that amount.
- The guidelines stated that when combined monthly income exceeds $15,000, the court should order the support amount due at $15,000 plus “an additional amount determined by the court.”
- The guideline amount at the $15,000 combined-income level corresponded to 9.15% of that income.
- The trial court calculated support by applying the 9.15% figure to the parties’ entire combined income ($52,434), then assigned Father 88% of that amount based on his income share, resulting in a monthly obligation of $4,300.
- The trial court also ordered Father to pay Mother’s attorney fees and costs.
- Father appealed, challenging the calculation method and the size of the award, and also challenging the fee award.

## Issues

1. Did the evidence support modifying Father’s child-support obligation based on changed circumstances (income and the child’s needs)?
2. When parents’ combined monthly income exceeds the top of Oklahoma’s guideline schedule ($15,000), may a court calculate support by applying the guideline percentage (9.15%) to the parents’ entire actual combined income?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees and costs to Mother in the modification proceeding?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to modify child support based on the evidence of changed circumstances.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion in setting support “far beyond” the guideline amount by mechanically applying the 9.15% figure to all combined income above the guideline cap.
- The court modified (reduced) the monthly child-support amount to align with the statutory approach: the $15,000 table amount plus a court-determined additional amount supported by the record.
- The court affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs to Mother.

## Legal Principles

- A child-support order may be modified when the record shows a material change in circumstances, including substantial changes in parental income and the child’s needs.
- Under Oklahoma’s guideline statute, when combined monthly income exceeds the top schedule amount, the proper starting point is the guideline support due at the maximum schedule income.
- For income above the schedule maximum, the statute requires an “additional amount determined by the court,” which calls for a reasoned exercise of discretion rather than an automatic extrapolation of the guideline percentage to all income.
- In high-income cases, child support should relate to the child’s reasonable needs and the parents’ ability to pay, avoiding an award that functions as an unwarranted transfer unrelated to the child’s expenses.
- Attorney-fee awards in child-support modification proceedings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and may be upheld when supported by the equities and the record.

## Conclusion

In *Smith v. Smith, 67 P.3d 351 (2002)*, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed that a child-support increase was warranted but rejected the trial court’s method of applying the guideline percentage to the parties’ full combined income above the $15,000 guideline cap; the court reduced the award to reflect the guideline maximum plus an evidence-based additional amount and affirmed the attorney-fee award to Mother.
