Facts:  Richard Graham and Michele Cunliffe are divorced and share custody of their two children equally.  After both Graham and Cunliffe’s income changed and one of the children moved into a new age category on the child support schedule, the state of Washington petitioned for modification of their parenting plan.  In response, Graham petitioned to have his support payment modified pursuant to the support formula used in In re marriage of Arvey, a case that involved a parenting plan in which each parent had custody of one of two children.  The commissioner for the Superior Court for King County declined to apply the Arvey support formula to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally and instead extrapolated Graham’s child support obligation from Washington Revised Code §26.19’s economic table, which does not calculate child support obligations for parents with monthly incomes in excess of $7,000.  Graham appealed the commissioner’s decision, asserting that it imposed an inequitable burden upon him.  The superior court reversed the commissioner’s decision and based its revision of Graham’s child support obligation upon the Arvey support formula.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Arvey support formula is inapplicable to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally and that extrapolation of child support obligations from §26.19’s economic table is appropriate in cases in which a parent’s monthly income exceeds $7,000.  Graham appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Is Arvey’s allocation of child support obligations applicable to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally?

Does §26.19 permit extrapolation from its economic table in cases in which a parent’s monthly income exceeds $7,000?

Conclusion:  Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Washington Court of Appeals.  The Court concluded that Arvey’s allocation of child support obligations is not applicable to cases in which parents share custody of their children equally.  However, the Court also held that §26.19 does not permit extrapolation from its economic table in cases in which a parent’s monthly income exceeds $7,000 insofar as §26.19 requires that the amount of support be based upon the child or children’s specific needs.

Docket No. 77858-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 52622-7)

Petitioner: Richard Graham

(Counsel: Catherine Wright Smith)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Jacqueline L. Jeske and Patricia S. Novotny)

Argument: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, February 1st, 2007

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander3 Court (2005-2007)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Bridge

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson