Goldberger v. Goldberger
1993 Md. App. LEXIS 96, 624 A.2d 1328, 96 Md. App. 313 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent is considered 'voluntarily impoverished' for child support purposes when they make a free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond their control, to be without adequate resources. This principle applies even if the choice, such as dedicating one's life to religious study, was made before having children and without the specific intent to avoid child support obligations.
Facts:
- Aron Goldberger dedicated his life to being a permanent, non-income-producing Torah/Talmudic student.
- He was supported financially first by his parents and later by his father-in-law.
- Aron and Esther Goldberger married and subsequently had six children.
- Throughout the marriage, Aron Goldberger continued his life of study and never held an income-producing job.
- Upon the parties' separation, Aron Goldberger refused to provide financial support for his six children, asserting he had no income or means to do so.
- A network of supporters from the Orthodox community contributed approximately $180,000 over a three-year period to fund Goldberger's custody litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Esther Goldberger and Aron Goldberger were parties to a divorce, custody, and support action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a trial court.
- During pre-trial conferences, the trial judge made several comments expressing displeasure with Aron Goldberger's conduct.
- On the first day of trial, Aron Goldberger moved for the judge to recuse himself for bias; the motion was denied.
- After a four-day trial, the circuit court granted the divorce, awarded custody to Esther Goldberger, and found Aron Goldberger to be voluntarily impoverished.
- The trial court imputed a potential income of $60,000 per year to Aron Goldberger and ordered him to pay $4,066 per month in child support.
- Aron Goldberger, as appellant, appealed the child support order and the denial of his recusal motion to this intermediate appellate court; Esther Goldberger is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent who makes a free and conscious choice to pursue a life of religious study that produces no income, a decision made before having children, become 'voluntarily impoverished' under Maryland's child support guidelines, thereby allowing a court to impute potential income for the purpose of calculating child support?
Opinions:
Majority - Dana Mark Levitz
Yes. A parent who makes a free and conscious choice to pursue a life of religious study that produces no income is 'voluntarily impoverished,' and a court may impute potential income for child support calculations. The court affirmed that the fundamental legal and natural duty of a parent to support their minor children is paramount and is not excused by a parent's voluntary lifestyle choice. The court defined 'voluntarily impoverished' as a free and conscious choice to be without adequate resources, irrespective of the parent's motive or when the choice was made. Thus, a parent who brings a child into the world must alter their chosen lifestyle if necessary to meet their support obligation. The trial court correctly found Aron Goldberger to be voluntarily impoverished because he was a healthy, educated man who chose a life of study over gainful employment. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in its method for calculating potential income, holding that it was improper to base the $60,000 potential income figure solely on funds donated by third parties for litigation. The case was therefore remanded for the trial court to redetermine potential income based on a series of established factors, such as education, work history, and job market conditions.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the 'voluntary impoverishment' doctrine in Maryland child support law, moving beyond the typical scenario where a parent quits a job to avoid payments. It establishes that a parent's deeply held personal or religious lifestyle choice does not supersede the fundamental duty to provide financial support for their children. The decision creates a clear precedent that a parent's 'choice' to be without income, rather than their specific intent to avoid support, is the key factor. The multi-factor tests articulated by the court provide a durable framework for lower courts to first determine whether a parent is voluntarily impoverished and then to properly calculate potential income based on earning capacity, not on third-party charity.
