AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case involves a father who lost his law license and driver's license due to sanctions under the Parental Responsibility Act for failing to pay child support. Despite being ordered to pay child support based on his previous income as a city attorney, the father sought a reduction in his child support obligations, arguing that his unemployment and inability to practice law constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, October 1998: Ordered the father to pay $1,216 per month in child support and $200 per month toward arrears, based on his prior income as a city attorney (para 3).
• District Court, February 2000: Found the father in contempt for failing to pay child support, sentenced him to 30 days in jail, and set arrears at $42,209. The court allowed him to purge contempt by paying $10,000 and continuing monthly payments (para 5).
• District Court, September 2000: Temporarily reduced child support to $422 per month based on the father's part-time employment, with a reevaluation scheduled for February 2001 (para 8).
• District Court, March 2001: Denied the father's motion to reduce child support, reinstated the original imputed income of $78,000, and set support at $807 per month, finding the father underemployed and lacking good faith efforts to secure full-time employment (paras 9-11).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the imputation of income based on his prior salary as a city attorney was unreasonable because he had lost his law license and driver's license, making it legally impossible to earn that income. He claimed he was not voluntarily underemployed and sought a reduction in child support obligations (paras 10-11, 13).
• Respondent (Human Services Department and Child's Mother): Contended that the father failed to make reasonable and good faith efforts to secure full-time employment or regain his law license, justifying the imputation of income based on his prior earning capacity (paras 13, 19).

Legal Issues

• Was the imputation of $78,000 in income to the father for child support purposes reasonable given his loss of a law license and driver's license?
• Did the father make reasonable and good faith efforts to secure full-time employment and fulfill his child support obligations?

Disposition

• The court affirmed the finding that the father was underemployed and failed to make reasonable efforts to secure full-time employment, justifying the imputation of income (para 27).
• The court reversed the imputation of $78,000 in income due to a lack of evidence supporting the father's ability to earn that amount and remanded the case for a determination of his actual earning potential (paras 27-28).

Reasons

Per Wechsler CJ (Alarid and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• The court found that the father failed to make reasonable and good faith efforts to secure full-time employment or regain his law license, despite being given ample time and explicit instructions to do so. His underemployment was deemed voluntary, justifying the imputation of income (paras 16-19).
• However, the imputation of $78,000 in income was unsupported by evidence. The court noted that no evidence was presented to show the father could earn that amount without a law license or that he had resources outside of his earnings. Imputing income based solely on his prior salary as a city attorney was speculative and unreasonable (paras 25-26).
• The court emphasized that income imputation must be based on evidence of earning potential and reasonable efforts to secure employment. It remanded the case for a determination of the father's actual earning capacity and resources (paras 24-28).