That's not what he said. He was given the choice between relocation (apparently at the same pay) or staying where he is at a lower pay. I suspect that a lot of judges would consider that a voluntary reduction in pay - he had the option of keeping his same pay.
I wouldn't relocate, either, but it is certainly a viable choice. Since he had the ability to keep the same pay (albeit at some inconvenience and maybe even reduction in time with his child), it might be considered voluntary. And since we don't know how much time he currently spends with the child, we don't even know that his visitation would be reduced significantly. Furthermore, we don't know that the child is the reason he didn't move. It looks to me like the new roommate (who only helps with the rent some of the time) may be at least a major part of the reason for not moving.
We don't know. Roommate or no roommate, I sure would not even consider moving out of our current school district, much less our town.
If I move to NY or even Chicago for the same rate of pay I have now, I am actually taking a significant reduction, as housing and certain other costs are much higher than here.
Another really big factor is having a mortgage currently. A relocation could actually COST many tens of thousands (even 100k or more, depending) to dump the current home, if upside down, and result in a huge financial LOSS.
Another factor is, and I don't know if this applies, but if one is a religious or ethnic minority, certain places are out of consideration, because there is no community, no markets with the correct food, no mosque, or synagogue, no kosher or ethnic food sources, etc. Some people would just be isolated from their religious community in some towns that have no access.
