Section 2007 - Deviation from child support guidelines1.Rebutting presumption. If the court or hearing officer finds that a child support order based on the support guidelines would be inequitable or unjust due to one or more of the considerations listed under subsection 3, that finding is sufficient to rebut the presumption established in section 2005. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]
2.Proposed findings. A party in a court action proposing deviation from the application of the support guidelines shall provide the court with written proposed findings showing that the application of the presumptive amount would be inequitable or unjust. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]
3.Criteria for deviating from support guidelines. Criteria that may justify deviation from the support guidelines are as follows: A. The application of section 2006, subsection 5, paragraph D or D-1 would be unjust, inequitable or not in the child's best interest; [2003, c. 415, §13(RPR).]B. The number of children for whom support is being determined is greater than 6; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]C. The interrelation of the total support obligation established under the support guidelines for child support, the division of property and an award of spousal support made in the same proceeding for which a parental support obligation is being determined; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]D. The financial resources of each child; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]E. The financial resources and needs of a party, including nonrecurring income not included in the definition of gross income; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]F. The standard of living each child would have enjoyed had the marital relationship continued; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]G. The physical and emotional conditions of each child; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]H. The educational needs of each child; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]I. Inflation with relation to the cost of living; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]J. Available income and financial contributions of the domestic associate or current spouse of each party; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]K. The existence of other persons who are actually financially dependent on either party, including, but not limited to, elderly, disabled or infirm relatives, or adult children pursuing post-secondary education. If the primary care provider is legally responsible for another minor child who resides in the household and if the computation of a theoretical support obligation on behalf of the primary care provider would result in a significantly greater parental support obligation on the part of the nonprimary care provider, that factor may be considered; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]L. The tax consequences if the obligor is awarded any tax benefits. In determining the allocation of tax exemptions for children, the court may consider which party will have the greatest benefit from receiving the allocation; [2001, c. 264, §8(AMD).]M. [2001, c. 264, §9(RP).]N. The fact that income at a reasonable rate of return may be imputed to nonincome-producing assets with an aggregate fair market value of $10,000 or more, other than an ordinary residence or other asset from which each child derives a substantial benefit; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]O. The existence of special circumstances regarding a child 12 years of age or older, for the child's best interest, requires that the primary residential care provider continue to provide for employment-related day care; [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]P. An obligor party's substantial financial obligation regarding the costs of transportation of each child for purposes of parent and child contact. To be considered substantial, the transportation costs must exceed 15% of the yearly support obligation; and [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).]Q. A finding by the court or hearing officer that the application of the support guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate or not in the child's best interest. [1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2(NEW); 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2(AFF).] [2003, c. 415, §13(AMD).]
1995, c. 694, §B2 (NEW) . 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF) . 2001, c. 264, §§8,9 (AMD) . 2003, c. 415, § 13 (AMD) .