Opinion
Bromberg & Bromberg, William L. Bromberg, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Reno & Judd, Richard D. Judd, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
DWYER, Judge.
The plaintiff and defendant were married August 29, 1958, and they were divorced on December 6, 1962. Two boys were born to the marriage, and at the time of the decree, the older boy was three years of age and the younger one was sixteen months of age. The court granted custody of the children to the plaintiff (mother) and ordered the defendant (father) to pay the sum of $125 per month for the support of each child. The court also ordered defendant to pay plaintiff alimony in the sum of $200 per month.
On July 30, 1970, the mother filed a motion to increase the support payments for the children. While this motion was pending, the mother remarried, and the father's obligation to pay alimony terminated by operation of law. The mother's motion to increase the support money payments was heard on January 28, 1971, and the court ordered the father to pay the sum of $200 per month thereafter for the support of each of the children. The father has appealed.
The father contends that the court failed to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by C.R.C.P. 52 and that without such findings the judgment cannot be sustained.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion for increase, the court orally announced its findings and conclusions. The court found that the children had reached the ages of nine and eleven years, respectively, and then stated:
'The monthly income of the parties, as well as the monthly expenses of each, are shown in the financial affidavits of the plaintiff and the defendant, and on pages one, two, and three of the pretrial order that was approved earlier today by the Court.
'The Court specifically finds that there has been a substantial change in circumstances on the part of plaintiff and defendant since the order of April 26th, 1963.
'The Court further finds that the needs of the two children have increased in the interim, as has also the ability of the defendant to pay increased child support. Therefore, there is justification under the facts of this case, and under the applicable law, to order an increase in child support.'
The court's findings and conclusions are sufficient to support the order entered. The court made the threshold finding that there had been 'a substantial change n circumstances,' and it is implicit in the court's findings that the amount ordered was necessary to provide for the needs of the two children and that the father had the financial ability to make such payments. To require more detailed or more specific findings would place an unreasonable burden on trial courts in the disposition of matters relating to the support of children. In Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480, 382 P.2d 809, the Supreme Court ruled that a trial court is under no duty to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in deciding motions for modification of support.
In entering its order increasing the order for support of the children, the court exercised its statutory jurisdiction to revise its previous order 'as changing circumstances may require . . ..' C.R.S.1963 46--1--5. The mother testified that she needed more support money because the children were older and the purchasing power of the dollar had declined since the original order was entered. This testimony established a change in circumstances, and thus the court had the power to order an increase in the support order.
In fixing the amount of a support order, the court's primary considerations are the needs of the children and the financial resources available to meet these needs, and in resolving these issues, the court must appraise the conditions as they exist at the time of the presentation of the motion. Watson v. Watson, 135 Colo. 296, 310 P.2d 554; Gourley v. Gourley, 101 Colo. 430, 73 P.2d 1375.
The father argues that his financial condition had not improved and that the court was without power to order an increase in support in the absence of showing that both the needs of the children and the father's ability to pay have increased. This argument is rejected. When it was shown that the needs of the children had increased, it was the father's legal obligation to pay additional support money to meet these increased needs commensurate with his present ability to pay and without regard to his past financial circumstances. In entering its order increasing the amount of the child support, the court did not exceed its statutory jurisdiction nor abuse its discretion.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.