Lexplug logoLexplug

Anderson v. Anderson

Louisiana Court of Appeal
96 So. 3d 1278 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A parent who becomes underemployed due to their own bad faith actions, such as losing a professional license and employment because of a drug abuse relapse, is considered voluntarily underemployed, and their child support obligation may be calculated based on their prior earning potential rather than their current, lower income.


Facts:

  • Warren Anderson and Anne Anderson were married and had three children.
  • Warren Anderson was employed as a nurse anesthetist with a gross monthly income of $12,429.00.
  • Anne Anderson was unemployed and served as the domiciliary parent.
  • Warren Anderson relapsed into drug abuse, took narcotics from the hospital where he was employed, and failed a drug test.
  • As a result of his actions, Mr. Anderson was terminated from his job and his nursing license and anesthetist privileges were suspended.
  • Mr. Anderson later found new employment as a nurse, earning a significantly lower income of $24.00 per hour (approximately $4,160.00 per month).
  • Ms. Anderson was found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration and began receiving $674.00 per month in disability benefits.

Procedural Posture:

  • Anne Anderson filed a petition for divorce against Warren Anderson in a Louisiana trial court, seeking child and spousal support.
  • A hearing officer initially recommended Mr. Anderson pay child and spousal support based on his income of $12,429.00 per month.
  • After losing his job, Mr. Anderson filed a rule to reduce his support obligations, alleging a change in circumstances.
  • A hearing officer recommended denying the child support reduction, finding Mr. Anderson was voluntarily unemployed, but recommended reducing spousal support.
  • The parties later executed a consent judgment agreeing to a reduced spousal support amount.
  • Mr. Anderson subsequently filed another rule to reduce both child and spousal support.
  • A hearing officer again recommended denying the child support reduction but recommended a further reduction in spousal support to account for Ms. Anderson's social security benefits.
  • Mr. Anderson objected to the hearing officer's recommendations, prompting a hearing before the trial court.
  • The trial court adopted the hearing officer's recommendations, denying the child support decrease and granting the spousal support decrease.
  • Warren Anderson (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeal, with Anne Anderson as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a parent who lost their high-paying job and professional license due to a relapse in drug abuse considered voluntarily underemployed, justifying the calculation of child support based on their prior earning potential rather than their current, lower income?


Opinions:

Majority - Clarence E. McManus, Judge

Yes, a parent who lost their high-paying job and professional license due to their own misconduct is considered voluntarily underemployed. The court determined that Mr. Anderson's loss of income was a direct result of his own bad faith actions—specifically, taking narcotics from his employer and failing a drug test. The determination of voluntary underemployment is a fact-driven question of good faith, and the trial court has wide discretion in this area. Because Mr. Anderson's underemployment was self-inflicted, the court did not err in calculating his child support obligation based on his prior, higher income of $12,429.00 per month as a nurse anesthetist. The court also correctly excluded Ms. Anderson's social security disability benefits from her income for child support calculation, as required by statute, and properly excluded loans from her parents, which were deemed gifts to supplement irregular support payments.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the principle that voluntary underemployment is a matter of good faith, and a parent cannot benefit from their own misconduct to reduce child support obligations. It affirms that courts can look beyond a parent's actual current earnings to their earning potential when the reduction in income is self-inflicted and not due to circumstances beyond their control. This decision empowers trial courts to prevent parents from shirking their financial responsibilities to their children through irresponsible or illegal behavior. It also provides a clear application of statutory rules that exclude certain funds, like social security disability benefits and supplemental gifts, from a recipient parent's income when calculating child support.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Anderson v. Anderson (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"