In Re the Marriage of Ober
1995 Iowa App. LEXIS 78, 1995 WL 574787, 538 N.W.2d 310 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not impute a higher earning capacity to a parent who voluntarily reduces their income unless the reduction was motivated by improper intent to avoid child support obligations or was the result of reckless conduct.
Facts:
- Linda Ober and Jeff Ober divorced in 1989, establishing a split physical custody arrangement for their daughter, Rochelle, with Linda having custody during the school year and Jeff during the summer.
- The original agreement required Jeff to provide Linda with $100 worth of meat during the school year and to pay for $200 of Rochelle's clothing during the summer.
- Jeff moved from Iowa, where he worked for his father earning $7.00 per hour, to Kansas to live with his girlfriend while she pursued a master's degree.
- In Kansas, Jeff obtained employment earning $6.25 per hour, a reduction from his income in Iowa.
- Since the original divorce decree, Linda Ober's income had increased.
- Linda alleged that Jeff had not fulfilled his obligations to provide the specified meat and clothing for their daughter.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 1992, Linda Ober filed a petition for modification in an Iowa trial court, seeking full physical care and child support from Jeff Ober.
- Jeff Ober filed an answer and counterclaim requesting sole custody and child support from Linda Ober.
- Jeff Ober later amended his counterclaim to withdraw his request for sole custody but maintained his request for child support during the summer months.
- The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances had occurred and ordered Jeff to pay child support during the school year and Linda to pay child support during the summer, based on their respective incomes at the time of trial.
- The trial court also denied Linda's request for a money judgment for the unpaid meat and clothing allowances.
- Linda Ober, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Iowa.
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's voluntary relocation to another state for personal reasons, which results in a lower income, require a court to calculate child support based on their previous, higher earning capacity under the 'self-inflicted' reduction of income rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Hayden, Judge
No. A court will calculate child support based on a parent's actual, albeit lower, income following a voluntary job change unless that change was made with improper intent or through reckless conduct. The court found that Jeff's move to Kansas was to be with his girlfriend, a legitimate personal reason, and was not a reckless act or an attempt to intentionally deprive his child of support. Therefore, his child support obligation was properly calculated based on his actual earnings of $6.25 per hour. The court's 'self-inflicted' rule is designed to prevent parents from strategically reducing their income to shirk their support duties, a situation not present here. The court also affirmed the calculation of Linda's income based on her earnings at the time of trial and upheld the trial court's discretion not to make the support award retroactive.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the voluntary impoverishment doctrine, often called the 'self-inflicted' rule, in Iowa child support modifications. It establishes that a parent's motive is the critical factor in determining whether to impute income. The decision distinguishes between a bad-faith reduction of income intended to avoid support obligations and a reduction resulting from legitimate, good-faith life choices, such as relocating for a new relationship. This precedent protects parents who make career or location changes for personal reasons from being penalized with a child support obligation based on a historical, higher earning capacity, so long as their actions are not reckless or intended to harm their children financially.
