This appeal is by the mother of two girls, eleven and eight years of age, from a judgment increasing child support from $205 monthly to $390. The issue is whether the trial judge abused his discretion.
On the other hand, appellee adopted the seven year old daughter of his new wife, she was obviously pregnant when the rule was tried, and she was scheduled to quit work in January, 1983, to have her baby.
Apparently the trial judge did not consider the income of appellee’s new wife since she had just another month to work. Thus, he must have added the $390 of child support awarded to appellant’s family income of $776 for a total of $1166 available to her family and subtracted the $390 from appellee’s family income (as of January) of $1700 for a total of $1310 available to his family (to be increased by one with the birth of his new child).
The trial court’s great discretion in fixing child support will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse. Kellogg v. Kellogg, 375 So.2d 200 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1979), and cases cited therein. Although the needs of appellee’s first two children exceed what he has been ordered to pay, he has a new wife and two more children to support. Considering all the circumstances we are not convinced that the trial judge abused his discretion.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.