"Adhering to a presumption in the face of facts to the contrary may constitute an abuse of discretion."
How later courts described this case
- "Adhering to a presumption in the face of facts to the contrary may constitute an abuse of discretion."
- invalidating child support guideline that altered substantive law; “a Superior Court rule ... cannot curtail substantive rights.”
- "the party trying to argue against application of the Guidelines faces a monumental obstacle in attempting to demonstrate a case is `exceptional' without knowing what `unexceptional' is."
- "extraordinary and unusual” not vague
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Coghill v. Coghill, 1992 Alas. LEXIS 85 (1992)
Accordingly, this holding of Fitzgerald is inapplicable here.
The opinion
TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join without reservation in the opinion of the court. I write separately to focus the spotlight on footnote 20 of that opinion, which briefly discusses, but does not decide, an issue concerning the manner in which the Child Support Guideline was adopted.
I agree that we need not decide this issue because we are invalidating the Guideline on other grounds. If that were not the case, I would hold, without a moment’s hesitation, that the procedure by which the Guideline was developed and issued did not meet the minimal demands of due process, and that the Guideline was therefore void and unenforceable. If the Superior Court elects to issue new guidelines rather than deferring to the legislature, it should afford ample time and opportunity for public participation in the drafting process, either by holding open hearings or by publishing the guidelines for a sufficient period of public comment before they are scheduled to take effect, or (preferably) both.
Child support guidelines have a direct impact on the lives and fortunes of thousands of our citizens. They should not be written in shadows and promulgated in the dark of night. The secret proceedings of the Committee which drafted the present Guideline were not only inherently unfair but unworthy of a democratic society.