Title: Alaska: Supreme Court holds Joshua pays more child support. BY: Shelia

Case Name, Citation, and Court: The Supreme court held in Childs v. Childs, No. S-14643., (Supreme Court of Alaska. 2013) that Joshua Childs,ex husband of Christina Childs, orders modification in child support in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the court. Key Facts: In 2005, the mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the father was ordered to pay child support of $540.85. In 2011 Christina filed a motion to modify child support , contending Joshua's income had increased and that an upward modification was warranted.In 2012, the superior court ordered the modification without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The new award Joshua was ordered to pay Christina $901 per month for both children. Joshua appeals.Joshua appeals, raising three arguments. First he was entitled to a stay of the child support modification proceeding under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.Second his right to due process was violated because the mother did not use certified mail to serve him and because the superior court ordered modification of child support without first holding a hearing.Third argues that the superior court abused its discretion in calculating his child support obligation to include his Basic Allowance for Housing. Issue: Whether a trial court violated a party's due process rights is a question of law? Rule: Civil Rule 90.3 provides that a trial court must calculate a "parent's total income from all sources". Berkbigler v. Berkbigler, the question whether a military housing allowance qualifies as income is expressly addressed by the commentary to Civil Rule 90.3. Analysis The court held that: There was no violation of the service-members Civil Relief Act. Joshua's right to due process was not violated. Joshua had notice of the child support proceeding. There was no disputed facts to merit a hearing. The superior court's child support award complied with the parental income guidelines in Alaska Civil Rule 90.3.Conclusion: