holding exceptions such as “good cause” not unconstitutionally vague “so long as judges and hearing commissioners contin-. ue to exercise their discretion to achieve equitable results consistent with existing case law”
How later courts described this case
- holding exceptions such as “good cause” not unconstitutionally vague “so long as judges and hearing commissioners contin-. ue to exercise their discretion to achieve equitable results consistent with existing case law”
- stating that trial court has discretion to choose method best approximating obli-gor's future earning capacity on basis of most complete evidence before it
- stating that “the custodial and noncustodial parents are clearly not similarly situated for the purposes of child support”
- holding it was not abuse of discretion for trial court to rely on financial information from 1989, as opposed to data from 1990, because older data was more complete
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BURKE, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the holding that the support formula imposed by Civil Rule 90.3 is constitutionally valid. The enactment of such a provision requires, in my judgment, the exercise of legislative power, which the court does not possess. The legislative power of the state is vested in the legislature. Alaska Const. art. II, § 1.