Klemp v. Andrach

Under ORS 107.106 and ORS 107.820, a trial court must address life insurance as security for child support but has discretion not to order it.

Child support obligations are a rebuttable presumption if the obligated parent presents probative evidence that the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate. ORS 25.280.

Petitioner appealed a supplemental judgment modifying child support.  On appeal, Petitioner argued the trial court erred in two ways: (1) by failing to require Respondent to maintain a life insurance policy as security for child support, and (2) by denying Petitioner’s request for an increased child support to cover private school tuition because (1) Oregon law mandates child support judgments include provisions addressing life insurance and (2) the children’s unique emotional and educational needs justified an upward deviation from the presumptive child support award. Respondent did not submit a brief or written response on appeal but testified at trial he could not afford the requested life insurance or private school tuition, asserting that paying for them would render him homeless. Under ORS 107.106 and ORS 107.820, a trial court must “address” life insurance as security for child support but is not required to order it. Child support obligations are a rebuttable presumption if the obligated parent presents probative evidence that the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate.  ORS 25.280. The Court found (1) the trial court complied with ORS 107.106 when it relied on Respondent’s testimony to deny Petitioner’s request to require Respondent to purchase a life insurance policy, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its determination the presumptive child support was not unjust or inappropriate because Respondent’s financial hardship was a relevant factor under ORS 25.280(3). The Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. AFFIRMED.