IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Jennifer Ann TOOKER, Appellant and Mark Glen Tooker, Appellee and Concerning El Paso County Child Support Services, Intervenor.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Paso County District Court No. 14DR3131, Honorable Erin
West, P.C., Daniel A. West, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for
Appearance for Appellee
Marrison Family Law, LLC, Mikayla Shearer, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, for Intervenor
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008,
referred to here as the GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. § § 3301-3327
(2018), provides eligible veterans with education benefits
such as tuition assistance, a stipend for books and supplies,
and a monthly housing allowance, 38 U.S.C. § 3313(a), (c)(1)
(2018). Mark Glen Tooker, a retired veteran, took advantage
of the GI Bills benefits to attend college.
In this post-dissolution of marriage dispute, Marks former
spouse, Jennifer Ann Tooker, challenges the district courts
order modifying Marks spousal maintenance and child support
obligations. More specifically, she contends the
district court erred in not (1) including the tuition
assistance and book stipend Mark received under the GI Bill
as income for purposes of calculating maintenance and child
support; (2) including Marks potential timber income in
calculating maintenance and child support; and (3) making
sufficient findings to modify Marks maintenance obligation.
Because we disagree with these contentions, we affirm.
The district court entered a decree dissolving the parties
in 2015. At that time, Mark and Jennifer had two biological
children. Jennifer also had a daughter, A.C.J.T., who was not
Marks biological child.
As part of the dissolution decree, and based on the parties
agreed parenting plan, the district court excluded A.C.J.T.
from the child support calculation but ordered Mark to pay
child support for the Tookers two biological children, as
well as maintenance.
Within the next few years, Jennifer and Mark each sought to
modify Marks monthly obligations. For her part, Jennifer
asserted that Mark was A.C.J.T.s legal parent and moved to
modify the child support obligation to include
A.C.J.T. She also moved to modify maintenance,
arguing that circumstances had changed due to a "more
than 10%" decrease in her income.
For his part, Mark sought modification or termination of
maintenance based on other changed circumstances, including
his reduced income (due to his military retirement) and, in
his view, Jennifers "dramatically increased
While the modification motions were pending, the juvenile
court, in a separate proceeding not contested here,