“relative income” is consistent with opinions from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Yost v. Yost, 735 P.2d 988, 990 (Idaho 1987) (concluding that “ ‘the financial resources, needs and obligations of both custodial and noncustodial parents’ encompass their share of the community property of their new marital communities”) (quoting language of trial court), superseded by Idaho Code § 32-706 (permitting consideration of noncustodial parent’s share of community property when “compelling reasons exist”); DeTevis v. Aragon, 727 P.2d 558, 563-64 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) (ruling that “a spouse has a legal obligation to use his or her community property interest, even if derived from a subsequent marriage, to support his or her children”); Smith v. Smith, 534 P.2d 1033, 1034 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the district court had
holding that in determining whether a seizure has occurred a court must consider if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave holding income tax liability incurred during marriage is one of accepted costs of producing marital income and should be treated as marital debt for purposes of determining equitable distribution of marital estate holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances holding that in determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred trial court must consider income available to parents new marital community