The applicant mother sought an interim order for table child support from the respondent father, pending trial.
The parties had a history of agreements for joint and shared custody with no child support, given their similar incomes and shared expenses, even after relocations due to military postings.
The mother argued that the shared parenting arrangement was no longer feasible and that she had primary care of the children for at least 75% of the time, thus triggering table support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
The father contended that their agreements, which anticipated mobility and provided for no child support, should be respected, and that the court has discretion under the Family Law Act to deviate from Guidelines if special provisions benefit the child.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reason to depart from the agreed-upon status quo on an interim basis, noting the similar incomes and substantial time each parent spent with the children, leaving the determination of changed circumstances to the trial judge.
