for entry of a modified judgment directing that Kovac’s duty of support be recalculated as having commenced upon R.M.’s birth. 1 . See State, CSED v. Gerke, 942 P.2d 423, 425 (Alaska 1997) (quoting Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 (Alaska 1979)). 2 . 938 P.2d 1013 (Alaska 1997). 3 . Id. at 1015 (citing AS 25.20.030; Matthews v. Matthews, 739 P.2d 1298, 1299 (Alaska 1987) (superceded by rule in other respects)). 4 .See id. at 1014. 8 . Id. at 1015 (quoting Cyrus v. Mondesir, 515 A.2d 736 (D.C.1986) (first alteration in original)). 9 . 973 P.2d 580 (Alaska 1999). 10 . See id. at 581, 586. 11 . See id. at 582. 12 . See id. at 581-83. 13 . See id. at 584-85 (expressly stating that Ru-bright could be liable for C.A.’s support even if Arnold had not been a party to th 450 (Alaska 1997) (<HOLDING>). 14 . CSED alternatively argues that Judge
recognizing that child support arrearages are imposable by law from the date of a childs birth holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5 holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan holding the amount imposed to reduce child support arrearages must be reasonable holding that the emotional benefits to the parents resulting from the childs birth could be applied to offset any damage award