No. 95-149

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1995 IN THE MATTER OF THE PATERNITY OF ADAM ANDREW DUERSCHMIDT KOCHIS, A Minor Child. WAYLAND DUERSCHMIDT,

Petitioner and Appellant,

and MARLA KOCHIS,

Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Missoula,

The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Wayland R. Duerschmidt, Pro Se, Plains, Montana

For Respondent:

Paulette C. Ferguson, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: September 21, 1995

Decided: October 31, 1995 Filed:

"*rk · '.

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to Section It Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court

1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be

cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public

document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its

result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing

Company.

Wayland Duerschmidt appeals the decision of the Fourth

Judicial District Court, Missoula County, establishing Marla

Kochis's child support obligation. We affirm.

The sole issue is whether the District Court abused its

discretion in determining Marla Kochis's child support obligation.

Wayland and Marla are the parents of Adam Kochis. The

District Court granted Wayland custody of Adam, and Wayland sought

child support from Marla. The parties were unable to agree on a

suitable amount for the child support obligation. After the Child

Support Enforcement Division (CSED) and a Special Master failed to

determine an agreeable child support obligation, Wayland and Marla

agreed to have Ann Steffens, a CSED employee whom they retained in

her private capacity, determine Marla's child support obligation.

Steffens reviewed the available financial information and

completed her child support obligation calculations. She submitted

her report to the District Court on September 14, 1994. Following

a hearing on the matter, the District Court accepted Steffens's

calculation of Marla's support obligation.

2 · .

Wayland argues on appeal that Marla's support obligation was

based on incomplete financial information. He insists that Marla

constantly refused to submit sufficient financial information

concerning a business owned by herself and her husband. He

therefore argues that the District Court erred in adopting

Steffens's calculation of child support.

We review a district court's award of child support to

determine if the court abused its discretion. In re the Marriage

of Craib (1994), 266 Mont. 483, 490, 880 P.2d 1379, 1384. A review

of the record reveals that Steffens had access to and examined

substantial financial records as to Marla personally and as to her

business. In her report to the court, Steffens stated, "I was

provided with tax returns, bank statements, ledger sheets, work

papers, etc, for the corporation "The District Court

record also indicates that Wayland failed to present any evidence

through testimony or otherwise which would warrant further

investigation of Marla's corporate finances.

We conclude that Steffens's child support calculations were

based on sufficient, reliable financial information. We therefore

hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its

award of child support. We affirm the District Court's decision.

3 • J

A

We concur:

4