(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 65.] I concur except as to Issue 4, where I dissent. Kimberly argues that the meaning of the word “dependent”, is in reference to Andrew’s physical and mental disability, which will require continued care throughout his adult years. I agree and it is a mistake to give Todd “a second bite of the apple.”
[¶ 66.] Unfortunately, Andrew’s physical and mental disability is permanent and he will always be “dependent” for life, family, medical and financial support. In this context, the stipulated agreement requiring Todd’s obligation for payment of child support, which shall continue “as long as Andrew[ ] is dependent or until further Order of the Court,” is clear. We should remand Issue 4 to be enforced, not to be interpreted.