Document Info

DocketNumber: 07-02-00031-CV

Filed Date: 11/21/2002

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/7/2015

  •                                        NO. 07-02-0031-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL C
    NOVEMBER 21, 2002
    ______________________________
    IN THE INTEREST OF C. C. B., A CHILD
    ______________________________
    FROM THE 317TH DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
    NO. C-176,793; HON. JACK KING, PRESIDING
    _______________________________
    Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1
    In one issue, appellant Travis Bach (Bach) claims error on the part of the trial court
    in modifying his child support obligation. In that issue, he asserts the trial court erred in
    its calculation of child support in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines in Chapter
    154 of the Family Code. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Background
    The Attorney General filed a petition in 1999 to establish the parent-child
    relationship of the child born to appellee Kathryn Spivey (Spivey). A hearing was held but
    Bach failed to appear. An order was then entered establishing that Bach was the father
    of the child and ordering him to pay $355 each month beginning June 1, 1999, and $50
    1
    John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. TEX. GOV’T
    CODE ANN. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002).
    per month for arrearage. Bach later filed a motion to modify the parent-child relationship
    requesting a reduction in child support. In response, Spivey filed a counter-petition
    requesting an increase in child support. After a hearing, the court increased Bach’s child
    support obligation to $465.12 per month beginning October 1, 2001.
    Calculation of Child Support
    In his sole issue, Bach challenges the trial court’s award of increased monthly child
    support because he contends that the only evidence in the record does not support the
    award calculated by the trial court. We overrule the argument.
    Standard of Review
    A court may modify a parent’s child support obligation upon proof that the
    circumstances of the child or parent have materially and substantially changed. TEX . FAM .
    CODE ANN . §156.401 (Vernon 2002). Whether to do so lies within the discretion of the trial
    court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless clearly abused.
    Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 
    860 S.W.2d 414
    , 415 (Tex. 1993); Hatteberg v. Hatteberg, 
    933 S.W.2d 522
    , 529 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ ). A court abuses its
    discretion only if it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles. Downer v.
    Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 
    701 S.W.2d 238
    , 241-42 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 
    476 U.S. 1159
    , 
    106 S. Ct. 2279
    , 
    90 L. Ed. 2d 721
    (1986); Tucker v. Tucker, 
    908 S.W.2d 530
    , 532
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied). Conversely, no abuse occurs when probative
    evidence underlies the decision. Thomas v. Thomas, 
    895 S.W.2d 895
    , 896 (Tex. App.—
    Waco 1995, writ denied).
    2
    Next, various guidelines used in regulating the court’s discretion appear in the
    Family Code. The first mandates calculation of net resources. TEX . FAM . CODE ANN .
    §154.062 (Vernon 2002). “Net resources” include all wage and salary income and other
    compensation for personal services, interest, dividends, royalty income, self-employment
    income, net rental income, and all other income actually received. Id.§154.062(b). Should
    those net resources equal or be less than $6000, then the trial court calculates the monthly
    support by multiplying the monthly net resource by 20%. 
    Id. §154.125(b). Here,
    however,
    the parties agreed to multiply the monthly net resource by 16%.
    Application of Standard
    Needless to say, the evidence appearing of record that concerns Bach’s gross and
    net monthly income was hardly uncontradicted. Nevertheless, his year 2000 tax return
    indicated that he had a gross annual income approximating $45,500.2 Dividing this
    number by 12 yielded a gross monthly income approximating $3790. Per applicable Texas
    Attorney General tax chart, the gross sum of $3790 yielded a net monthly resource
    approximating $2942. Sixteen percent of $2942 yielded a monthly child support payment
    approximating $470. Here, the court ordered that Bach pay $465.12 as monthly child
    support. As can be seen, the conclusion enjoys the support of probative evidence and,
    consequently, does not evince an abuse of discretion.
    Accordingly, we affirm the child support order of the trial court.
    2
    In an effort to determine the monthly child support, the legislature mandated, among other things,
    that the parties produce copies of income tax returns for the past two years, financial statements, and current
    pay stubs. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §154.063(2) (Vernon 2002) (emphasis added). Given that the hearing at
    bar was held in September of 2001, Bach’s year 2000 tax return was relevant evidence in assessing his
    gross annual income, net monthly resources, and child support obligation.
    3
    Brian Quinn
    Do not publish.          Justice
    4