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 concerns a dispute over the calculation of a father’s child support obligations following his separation from the mother of their three children in 2002. The father argued that his income should not have been imputed at $8.00 per hour for periods when he was incarcerated or unemployed, as he claimed these circumstances affected his ability to pay child support (paras I, II, and III).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 25, 2008: A hearing was held to determine the child support obligations of the parties. The hearing officer issued an amended report on April 18, 2008, imputing the father’s income at $8.00 per hour for the entire period between the separation and the hearing. The district court adopted the hearing officer’s findings and decision (paras I and II).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court improperly imputed his income during periods of incarceration and unemployment. He contended that his incarceration and inability to secure meaningful employment due to his criminal record, alcoholism, and poor health should have been considered in calculating his child support obligations (paras II and III).
• Appellee (Mother): Asserted that the father’s testimony regarding the length of his incarceration was inconsistent and that the hearing officer properly relied on jail records to determine the periods of incarceration. She argued that the father’s income should be imputed for the entire period, including during incarceration and unemployment (paras II and III).
• Intervenor (State of New Mexico ex rel. Human Services Department): Supported the imputation of the father’s income at $8.00 per hour, arguing that the father failed to demonstrate an inability to pay child support during the relevant periods (paras II and III).

Legal Issues

• Was the father’s income properly imputed at $8.00 per hour during periods of incarceration?
• Was the father’s income properly imputed at $8.00 per hour during periods of unemployment?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to impute the father’s income at $8.00 per hour for the entire period, including during incarceration and unemployment (para III).

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Fry CJ. and Vanzi J. concurring):

The Court reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. It concluded that the district court did not err in imputing the father’s income at $8.00 per hour for the following reasons:

Length of Incarceration: The hearing officer acknowledged the father’s jail records and testimony, which indicated discrete periods of incarceration totaling approximately three and a half years. The Court presumed that the hearing officer was aware of this total and found no error in imputing income for these periods (paras II.A and III).

Imputation During Incarceration: The Court applied the factors from Thomasson v. Johnson, 120 N.M. 512, which require consideration of whether the criminal act was deliberate, the length of incarceration, the parent’s marketable skills, and other assets. The Court found that the father failed to meet his burden of proving an inability to pay child support during incarceration. It noted that a three-and-a-half-year incarceration period was relatively short and did not justify a reduction in support obligations (paras II.B and III).

Imputation During Unemployment: The Court rejected the father’s argument that his criminal record, alcoholism, and poor health excused his unemployment. It found substantial evidence that the father was capable of earning $8.00 per hour, as he had done so in the past and had recently obtained a trucking license that would allow him to earn at least that amount (paras II.C and III).

Good Faith Argument: The Court dismissed the father’s reliance on Quintana v. Eddins, 2002-NMCA-008, which requires a finding of bad faith to impute income for underemployment. The Court held that the father failed to demonstrate that he was working full-time in his area of expertise or earning within the range of evidence presented (paras II.B and II.C).

The Court concluded that the district court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, it affirmed the imputation of the father’s income at $8.00 per hour for the entire period (para III).