Rush, J.
We granted transfer to address one narrow issue: whether a custodial parent may be a “victim” for purposes of restitution based on a child-support arrearage even if the children have been emancipated. . . . .
. . . .
In essence, these decisions have held that an arrearage is payable to the custodial parent after a child is emancipated. [Footnote deleted.] . . . This is because an arrearage “compensate[s] the custodial parent for his or her expenses in assuming more than his or her share of the cost of supporting the child until his or her emancipation.” . . . Or, in other words, the presumption in these cases is that the custodial parent has made up any shortfall that resulted from the noncustodial parent’s failure to fulfill his or her child-support obligations. . . . Thus, although there may be limited instances where an emancipated child is entitled to a child-support arrearage, the general rule is that the arrearage goes to the custodial parent. . . . .
. . . We agree that a custodial parent, whose children are now emancipated, is entitled to a presumption that he or she expended his or her own funds to offset any deficit caused by missing child-support payments. We see no reason to limit this presumption to only civil cases.
Given this presumption, it logically follows that a custodial parent who is presumed to have expended his or her own funds would also be presumed to have suffered an “injury, harm or loss” as a direct result of a noncustodial parent’s failure to support his dependent children. Stated another way, a trial court is well within its discretion in determining that a custodial parent like Kathy is a “victim” entitled to criminal restitution in the amount of the child-support arrearage. [Footnote omitted.] Importantly, we do not hold that a custodial parent whose children are now emancipated is the only possible “victim” under these circumstances but that a custodial parent is entitled to a presumption that he or she has suffered an “injury, harm or loss” as a direct result of the noncustodial parent’s failure to pay child support. As a result, and barring an unusual circumstance, the custodial parent will be the recipient of criminal restitution for child-support arrearage in cases where the children have been emancipated. Furthermore, given the Court of Appeals’ broad language in its opinion, we must stress that this principle applies with even greater force when dependent children are involved—in those cases, criminal restitution for a support arrearage is payable only to the custodial parent.
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.