needs standard in South Dakota

2013Further, “the trial court may calculate support by mathematical extrapolation, but it is not obligated to do so.... [T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D.1993) (citing Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992)).

2013Further, “the trial court may calculate support by mathematical extrapolation, but it is not obligated to do so. . . . [T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D. 1993) (citing Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D. 1992)).

2013Further, “the trial court may calculate support by mathematical extrapolation, but it is not obligated to do so.... [T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D.1993) (citing Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992)).

2013Further, “the trial court may calculate support by mathematical extrapolation, but it is not obligated to do so. . . . [T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D. 1993) (citing Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D. 1992)).

2009With only limited findings, we are unable “ ‘to make the appropriate calculations or render a meaningful review.’ ” Watson-Wojewski, 2000 SD 132, ¶ 19 , 617 N.W.2d at 671 (citations omitted). *823 [¶ 9.] Here, the trial court’s findings on child support are limited, and we are unable to determine if the $750 child support amount reflects the actual needs or standard of living of the children.

2009With only limited findings, we are unable “ ‘to make the appropriate calculations or render a meaningful review.’ ” Watson-Wojewski, 2000 SD 132, ¶ 19 , 617 N.W.2d at 671 (citations omitted). *823 [¶ 9.] Here, the trial court’s findings on child support are limited, and we are unable to determine if the $750 child support amount reflects the actual needs or standard of living of the children.

2002It is the custodial parent's burden to prove "his or her claimed expenses reflect the child's needs and standard of living." Watson, 2000 SD 132 at ¶ 20 , 617 N.W.2d at 671 (emphasis original) (citing Ochs, 538 N.W.2d at 530 ).

1999Further, a child support increase should not be automatically granted, but is instead based on “the actual needs and standard of living of the child.” See Ochs v. Nelson, 538 N.W.2d 527, 532 (S.D.1995) (Amundson, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). [¶ 25.] The appellant succinctly set forth why capital gains should not be included: Under the facts of this case, the transaction resulted in no more than a change in form of the asset.

1997However, where the parties’ income exceeds the statutory guidelines, SDCL 25-7-6.9 provides the child support obligation “shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child.” In Jones v. Jones, 472 N.W.2d 782, 785 (S.D.1991), we held establishment of child support obligations above the statutory guidelines was within the trial court’s discretion, taking into account the child’s actual needs and standard of living.

1997However, where the parties' income exceeds the statutory guidelines, SDCL 25-7-6.9 provides the child support obligation "shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child." In Jones v. Jones, 472 N.W.2d 782, 785 (S.D. 1991), we held establishment of child support obligations above the statutory guidelines was within the trial court's discretion, taking into account the child's actual needs and standard of living.

2017See e.g., Evans v. Evans, 1997 S.D. 16 , ¶ 19, 559 N.W.2d 240, 245 (“[T]he trial court’s inquiry is to take into account the actual needs and standard of living of the children.”).

2013In addition, the party requesting child support in excess of the schedule “has the burden of proving [the] claimed expenses reflect the children’s needs and standard of living.” Evans v. Evans, 1997 S.D. 16 , ¶ 20, 559 N.W.2d 240, 245 (citing Billion, 1996 S.D. 101 , ¶ 40, 553 N.W.2d at 235 ).

2009See McKittrick v. McKittrick, 2007 SD 44, ¶ 12 , 732 N.W.2d 404, 409 ; Laird, 2002 SD 99, ¶ 13 , 650 N.W.2d at 296 ; Watson-Wojewski v. Wojewski, 2000 SD 132, ¶¶ 17, 24 , 617 N.W.2d 666, 670, 671 (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Roberts v. Roberts, 2003 SD 75 , 666 N.W.2d 477 .

2009See McKittrick v. McKittrick, 2007 SD 44, ¶ 12 , 732 N.W.2d 404, 409 ; Laird, 2002 SD 99, ¶ 13 , 650 N.W.2d at 296 ; Watson-Wojewski v. Wojewski, 2000 SD 132, ¶¶ 17, 24 , 617 N.W.2d 666, 670, 671 (citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Roberts v. Roberts, 2003 SD 75 , 666 N.W.2d 477 .

2013In addition, the party requesting child support in excess of the schedule “has the burden of proving [the] claimed expenses reflect the children’s needs and standard of living.” Evans v. Evans, 1997 S.D. 16 , ¶ 20, 559 N.W.2d 240, 245 (citing Billion, 1996 S.D. 101 , ¶ 40, 553 N.W.2d at 235 ).

2013In addition, the party requesting child support in excess of the schedule “has the burden of proving [the] claimed expenses reflect the children’s needs and standard of living.” Evans v. Evans, 1997 S.D. 16 , ¶ 20, 559 N.W.2d 240, 245 (citing Billion, 1996 S.D. 101 , ¶ 40, 553 N.W.2d at 235 ).

2007Using straight extrapolation or some other statistical or mathematical formula is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and may not reflect the child’s actual needs and standard of living. [¶ 12.] Since the 1997 schedule change, we have only reviewed two child support cases where the parents’ combined income exceeded $10,000.00. 7 Laird, 2002 SD 99 , 650 N.W.2d at 296 (examining the standard of living of the child prior to the parents’ divorce); Watson-Wojewski, 2000 SD 132 , 617 N.W.2d at 666 (remanding for specific findings as to child’s actual needs and standard of living).

2007Using straight extrapolation or some other statistical or mathematical formula is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and may not reflect the child’s actual needs and standard of living. [¶ 12.] Since the 1997 schedule change, we have only reviewed two child support cases where the parents’ combined income exceeded $10,000.00. 7 Laird, 2002 SD 99 , 650 N.W.2d at 296 (examining the standard of living of the child prior to the parents’ divorce); Watson-Wojewski, 2000 SD 132 , 617 N.W.2d at 666 (remanding for specific findings as to child’s actual needs and standard of living).

2015See Hill, 2009 S.D. 18 , ¶ 8, 763 N.W.2d at 822 (“We have consistently required adequate findings of fact regarding the child’s needs and standard of living when a court sets support above the schedule’s maximum.”).

2013Id. [¶ 35.] In situations where the parents’ combined net monthly income exceeds $20,000, “the child support obligation shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child.” SDCL 25-7-6.9.

2000A main purpose of such findings is “to aid the appellate court in reviewing the basis for the trial court’s decision[.]” Heikkila v. Carver, 416 N.W.2d 591, 592 (S.D.1987) (citing J.

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. de nied, 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. denied, *244 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. de nied, 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. denied, *244 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. de nied, 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1997Accord Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125, 127-28 (S.D.1992), cert. denied, *244 506 U.S. 895 , 113 S.Ct. 272 , 121 L.Ed.2d 200 (1992).

1996Feltman v. Feltman, 434 N.W.2d 590, 592 (S.D.1989). “[T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children.” Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D.1993).

1996Feltman v. Feltman, 434 N.W.2d 590, 592 (S.D.1989). "[T]he essential inquiry remains the actual needs and standard of living of the children." Bloom v. Bloom, 498 N.W.2d 213, 217 (S.D.1993).