Little v. Little – Child Support
Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 975 P.2d 108 (1999).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over child support in a case where a parent decides to go back to school.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. Little divorced in 1995 and Mr. Little was ordered to pay $1,186 per month in child support for their two young children. H held a commission with the Air Force with a salary of $48,000 per year which he resigned to attend law school full time at Arizona State University College of Law. H petitioned the court to reduce his support to $239 per month. This request was denied on grounds that H voluntarily left his employment to further his own ambitions and that he had failed to consider the needs of his children. The trial court did reduce the amount to $972 per month on the ground that W had acquired a higher paying job. The court of appeals applied a good faith test to determine that the lower court abused its discretion. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Should the court use a good faith test to determine child support if a parent voluntarily leaves employment?
RULE OF LAW: No. The court should not use a good faith test to determine child support if a parent voluntarily leaves employment.
HOLDING AND DECISION: We reject the strict rule test that merely disregards any income reduction produced by voluntary conduct and looks at the earning capacity of the party in fashioning a support obligation. We adopt the intermediate test that balances various factors to determine whether to use actual income or earning capacity in making a support determination.
Arizona law states that the obligation to pay child support is primary and other financial obligations are secondary. Thus in any voluntary change in employment the court must consider the financial impact on the parent’s decision to justify a modification in child support. If the voluntary decision places the child in financial peril, then the court generally should not permit a downward modification. If the impact on the children is not severe, the court should then consider if the parent’s current educational level and physical capacity provide him or her with the ability to find suitable work in the marketplace. If so, the decision to leave employment is less reasonable. If the additional training is likely to increase earning potential, the decision is more likely to be found reasonable.
Such criteria as the length of schooling and the age of the children are relevant in determining if they would benefit from the voluntary change of circumstances. The court of appeals looked strictly to a 40 year old holding in Nelson to support its decision that held the father’s financial circumstances must be balanced against that of the children. We must reject this as it holds the best interests of the children on par with the best interests of the parent.
W only earns $1040 per month. That income places W and her children well below the poverty level and without H’s support they would face severe economic hardship. H also holds a BA and an MBA and the issue of just how much H would earn if he completes law school or goes to work in business today is mere speculation. The speculative nature of the increased education brings into question H’s decision as well as the fact that H did not even attempt to find work that would allow H to fulfill his financial obligations to his children. In addition, H has been able to finance his education and his support payments through student loans. The trial court also found that H failed to act in good faith and was merely fulfilling his own ambitions rather than his parental responsibilities.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.