abstract99
Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Az
A little over a year ago I petitioned the courts for permission to lower my child support based on my new disability rating as well as my schooling. Because my disability was service related the Government pays for me to go back to school as long as I receive my degree within 4 years. The courts ruled against me and told me that I had to hold a full time job. They calculated my child support off of the living allowance that I received for school, my disability pay as well as a full time job. This brought my income up to almost $4,000 a month when I only make roughly $2,000 a month and 24,000 a year. What I am going to school for would increase my income by roughly 55-60,000 a year.
Arizona State law reads as follows:
E. If a parent is unemployed or working below full earning capacity, the court may consider the reasons. If earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for
reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity. If the reduction in income is voluntary but reasonable, the court shall balance that parent's decision and benefits therefrom against the impact the reduction in that parent's share of child support has on the children's best interest. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320, income of at least minimum wage shall be attributed to a parent ordered to pay child support. If income is attributed to the parent receiving child support, appropriate childcare expenses may also be attributed. The court may decline to attribute income to either parent. Examples of cases in which it may be inappropriate to attribute income include, but are not limited to, the following circumstances:
1. A parent is physically or mentally disabled,
2. A parent is engaged in reasonable career or occupational training to establish basic skills or reasonably calculated to enhance earning capacity
I also found the following case that was heard in the Arizona Supreme Court:
LISA L. LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. BILLY L. LITTLE, JR., Respondent-Appellant.
1 CA-CV 97-0576
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A
193 Ariz. 23; 969 P.2d 188; 1998 Ariz. App. LEXIS 84; 269 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22
May 21, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County. Cause No. DR 93-13287. The Honorable M. Jean Hoag, Judge.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant father sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County (Arizona) that denied his request to modify child support on the grounds that his pursuit of a law degree was an unreasonable voluntary reduction in income and did not warrant modification. The father's motions to vacate and for a new trial were also denied.
OVERVIEW: A father filed a petition seeking modification of child support on the grounds that he had terminated his position with the Air Force and entered law school. The trial court denied the modification request, holding that the father's voluntary reduction in income was unreasonable. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court judgment. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the father's pursuit of a law degree was unreasonable and did not constitute a substantial and continuing change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his support obligations. The court found that the record was replete with evidence of good faith and reasonableness. The court found that the fact that the father chose to stay in-state near his children was not only reasonable but showed his desire to remain active in their upbringing. Further, it was reasonable to conclude that a law degree would enhance his economic fortunes. The court noted that the good faith test was fact specific and the decision should not be read as a bright-line rule permitting modifications in any or all cases in which an obligated spouse chose to pursue a different occupation or degree.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court judgment that denied the father's request for modification of child support. The court held that the father's decision to pursue a law degree was reasonable and in good faith and therefore constituted a substantial and continuing change of circumstances warranting modification. The court denied the father's request for attorney's fees and ordered that each party was responsible for costs of the appeal.
QUESTION: Do you think that based on this information I can appeal the decision of the Judge for my case?
A little over a year ago I petitioned the courts for permission to lower my child support based on my new disability rating as well as my schooling. Because my disability was service related the Government pays for me to go back to school as long as I receive my degree within 4 years. The courts ruled against me and told me that I had to hold a full time job. They calculated my child support off of the living allowance that I received for school, my disability pay as well as a full time job. This brought my income up to almost $4,000 a month when I only make roughly $2,000 a month and 24,000 a year. What I am going to school for would increase my income by roughly 55-60,000 a year.
Arizona State law reads as follows:
E. If a parent is unemployed or working below full earning capacity, the court may consider the reasons. If earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for
reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity. If the reduction in income is voluntary but reasonable, the court shall balance that parent's decision and benefits therefrom against the impact the reduction in that parent's share of child support has on the children's best interest. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320, income of at least minimum wage shall be attributed to a parent ordered to pay child support. If income is attributed to the parent receiving child support, appropriate childcare expenses may also be attributed. The court may decline to attribute income to either parent. Examples of cases in which it may be inappropriate to attribute income include, but are not limited to, the following circumstances:
1. A parent is physically or mentally disabled,
2. A parent is engaged in reasonable career or occupational training to establish basic skills or reasonably calculated to enhance earning capacity
I also found the following case that was heard in the Arizona Supreme Court:
LISA L. LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. BILLY L. LITTLE, JR., Respondent-Appellant.
1 CA-CV 97-0576
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A
193 Ariz. 23; 969 P.2d 188; 1998 Ariz. App. LEXIS 84; 269 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22
May 21, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County. Cause No. DR 93-13287. The Honorable M. Jean Hoag, Judge.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant father sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County (Arizona) that denied his request to modify child support on the grounds that his pursuit of a law degree was an unreasonable voluntary reduction in income and did not warrant modification. The father's motions to vacate and for a new trial were also denied.
OVERVIEW: A father filed a petition seeking modification of child support on the grounds that he had terminated his position with the Air Force and entered law school. The trial court denied the modification request, holding that the father's voluntary reduction in income was unreasonable. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court judgment. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the father's pursuit of a law degree was unreasonable and did not constitute a substantial and continuing change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his support obligations. The court found that the record was replete with evidence of good faith and reasonableness. The court found that the fact that the father chose to stay in-state near his children was not only reasonable but showed his desire to remain active in their upbringing. Further, it was reasonable to conclude that a law degree would enhance his economic fortunes. The court noted that the good faith test was fact specific and the decision should not be read as a bright-line rule permitting modifications in any or all cases in which an obligated spouse chose to pursue a different occupation or degree.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court judgment that denied the father's request for modification of child support. The court held that the father's decision to pursue a law degree was reasonable and in good faith and therefore constituted a substantial and continuing change of circumstances warranting modification. The court denied the father's request for attorney's fees and ordered that each party was responsible for costs of the appeal.
QUESTION: Do you think that based on this information I can appeal the decision of the Judge for my case?