Kelly and Monica Fladger divorced after a bench trial involving their two children. The trial court calculated support using the statutory maximum basic obligation and added a $2,000 high-income deviation based on the parents’ substantial income disparity, but its worksheet and original order did not explain why the presumptive amount was unjust or inappropriate or how the deviation served the children’s best interests. The trial court later amended the order to add some findings, and the father appealed. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that OCGA § 19-6-15 requires written findings addressing those statutory questions whenever a deviation is applied. Findings of income, the amount that would be due without a deviation, and a conclusory statement that deviation is appropriate did not satisfy the requirement to explain the statutory reasoning. The Court reversed the child-support award and remanded for proper findings if the trial court again applied a deviation, while affirming the remainder of the divorce judgment. Justice Hunstein dissented, viewing the trial court’s reasoning as sufficiently obvious and the remand as needlessly prolonging the litigation.