A-25-71, Colby A. Klahn (Appellant) v. Ashleigh B. Klahn
Hall County, District Court, Judge Patrick M. Lee
Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey P. Ensz (Lieske, Lieske & Ensz, P.C., L.L.C.)
Attorney for Appellee: Erin M. Urbom (Bradley Law Office, PC)
Civil Action: Modification of Parenting Time and Child Support
Action Taken by Trial Court: Colby and Ashleigh have a son, born in 2016. The parties divorced in 2019. In 2021, they entered into a settlement agreement and parenting plan to modify the 2019 decree. The parties agreed they would “continue to share joint legal and physical custody” of their son. Ashleigh had primary physical placement of the child during the school year and Colby had primary physical placement during the summer; Colby’s summer parenting time was the first full week after school let out for the summer until 1 week prior to the start of the school year. The parent not having primary physical placement would have parenting time with the child every other weekend and “telephone or FaceTime access” every day. Additionally, the parties agreed that Colby would pay child support in the amount of $200 per month; this was based on a “Worksheet 3 – Joint Physical Custody” calculation, which calculated Colby’s obligation to be $219, but the parties agreed to a downward deviation due to Colby’s medical-related costs for insulin. The district court approved the settlement agreement and parenting plan.
In 2024, Ashleigh filed a complaint to modify child support and telephone time. Ashleigh’s basis for the child support modification was an increase in both parties’ incomes that would result in at least a 10 percent upward deviation of the current child support obligation.
The parties subsequently mutually agreed to a parenting plan that continued their joint legal and physical custody of their son. Parenting time was also similar, however, summer was not defined. Telephone time and child support remained unresolved.
Following a trial, the district court modified child support, increasing Colby’s obligation to $478 per month; this was based on a “Worksheet 1 – Basic Income and Support Calculation” with no deviation for Colby’s medical costs, but Colby was given an 80 percent abatement of his child support obligation for the months of June and July when the child resided with him. The court also modified the telephone time so that the “non-custodial” parent had telephone or FaceTime parenting time with the child two specified days each week. Additionally, the court observed that no definition of summer was provided in the parties’ updated parenting plan, and the court therefore defined summer “as beginning on the last weekend of May and ending on the first weekend of August.”
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Colby assigns that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) modifying his child support, (2) reducing telephone contact with the parties’ son, and (3) unilaterally changing the summer parenting time schedule the parties agreed upon prior to trial.