## Facts

- Former spouses divorced in 1981; the mother received custody of two daughters, and the father was ordered to pay child support.
- In 1985, the support obligation was increased to $1,400 per month for two children and visitation terms were set.
- In 1991, the father sought to hold the mother in contempt for alleged visitation violations; the mother sought increased child support based on changed circumstances, including the father’s increased income.
- The trial court found the mother not in contempt and addressed support for the one child who remained a minor.
- The parents’ combined monthly income exceeded the upper limit of Maryland’s statutory child-support schedule (then capped at $10,000 per month for guideline calculations).
- After reviewing financial statements, the court found the child’s reasonable monthly expenses were $1,873 and allocated them by an 83/17 income split, ordering the father to pay $1,550 per month (up from $700 per month for that child).

## Issues

1. Whether the maximum basic child-support obligation shown at the top of the statutory schedule operates as a cap when parents’ combined monthly income exceeds the schedule’s upper limit.
2. Whether, in an above-guidelines case, a trial court may calculate support by finding the child’s reasonable expenses and apportioning them between the parents according to their respective shares of income.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting the father’s support obligation at $1,550 per month.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the modified child-support award.
- The court held the guideline schedule’s maximum amount is not an automatic cap for cases above the schedule’s income limit.
- The court held trial courts have broad discretion in above-guidelines cases and are not required to extrapolate from the schedule or apply a fixed percentage of income.
- The court upheld the trial court’s method of determining reasonable child expenses and allocating them according to the parties’ income shares, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland’s child-support schedule provides presumptive obligations only within the income range covered by the schedule; when combined income exceeds that range, the statute does not impose a mandatory formula.
- The schedule’s top listed obligation is not a ceiling on support in high-income cases absent statutory language creating a cap.
- In above-guidelines cases, trial courts may set support based on the child’s reasonable needs and expenses and may allocate the obligation proportionally under the income-shares approach.
- Extrapolation from the guideline table may be used as a reference point, but it is discretionary rather than required.
- Appellate review of above-guidelines awards focuses on whether the trial court acted within its discretion and grounded the award in reasonable findings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an above-guidelines child-support increase, ruling that the guideline schedule’s maximum is not a cap and that a trial court may base support on reasonable child expenses apportioned by the parents’ relative income shares, so long as the award falls within the court’s discretion.


Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 609 A.2d 319 (Md. 1992)