in the Interest of N.T.P. and L.C.P., Children
2012 WL 6743551, 402 S.W.3d 13, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10774 (2012)
Rule of Law:
A trial court may modify child support obligations based on a material and substantial change in circumstances, such as retirement, and retains discretion to calculate support based on actual earnings rather than earning potential—even in cases of voluntary unemployment—if evidence suggests the unemployment is not solely to avoid support and serves the parent's legitimate interests or health needs.
Facts:
- Mark Pistone (Father) and Susan Meyer (Mother) divorced in 2007 while Father was serving in the U.S. Air Force.
- The original divorce decree ordered Father to pay $1,500 per month in child support and covered specific travel expenses.
- In May 2011, Father remarried a woman stationed in England and subsequently moved to England to reside with her.
- In July 2011, Father voluntarily retired from the military after 33 years of service.
- Following retirement, Father's gross monthly income dropped from approximately $10,550 (active duty pay) to $6,442 (retirement pay).
- Father is a qualified nurse capable of earning $60,000 to $90,000 annually but testified he did not plan to work immediately due to health issues (sleep apnea, arthritis) and a desire to spend more time with his children during visits.
- Mother's portion of the children's private school tuition had effectively increased relative to Father's due to how tuition reductions were applied.
- A dispute arose regarding the calculation of the military retirement division formula based on Father's years of service.
Procedural Posture:
- Father filed a Petition for Modification and Clarification of Prior Order in the trial court.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition.
- The trial court signed an order reducing Father's child support and modifying travel expense obligations.
- The trial court signed a separate Order Clarifying Prior Order regarding the military retirement division.
- Mother appealed both orders to the Court of Appeals.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by reducing a parent's child support obligation based on reduced income following a voluntary retirement and relocation, when the parent possesses a higher earning potential but chooses not to work?
Opinions:
Majority - Sandee Bryan Marion
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the child support obligation because the father's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances and the court properly weighed his earning potential against his reasons for unemployment. The court reasoned that while a parent cannot maintain voluntary underemployment solely to avoid support, the trial court must balance the obligor's duty to support the child with their right to pursue happiness. Citing Iliff v. Iliff, the court noted that there is no absolute requirement to base support on earning potential if the obligor offers rebuttal evidence regarding their unemployment. Here, the Father presented evidence of physical ailments (sleep apnea, arthritis), his move to England to be with his wife, and his desire to have more time for visitation. Regarding the jurisdiction issue, the court held that modifying travel expenses relates to a 'monetary obligation' (child support) rather than custody, allowing the court to retain jurisdiction even though the parties had left the state. Finally, regarding the clarification order, the court held that inserting specific numbers into the retirement division formula was a clarification, not a modification, and the court correctly interpreted the military pay chart 'Over 14' column because the Father had exactly 16 years of service, not 'Over 16' years.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Catherine Stone
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion regarding the child support modification because the Father is voluntarily unemployed without a sufficient justification that serves the best interests of the children. While concurring on the jurisdiction and clarification issues, the dissent argued that the Father's decision to remain completely unemployed despite being capable of earning $60,000 to $90,000 violates his legal and moral duty to support his children. The dissent emphasized that moving to England actually made visitation harder and more expensive, contradicting the Father's claim that unemployment allowed for better visitation. Furthermore, the dissent noted that ordering the Mother to pay half of the expensive international travel costs would consume the majority of the reduced child support she received, leaving little for the children's actual necessities.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant deference appellate courts give to trial courts in family law matters, specifically regarding the 'abuse of discretion' standard. Even though the Father voluntarily retired and moved overseas, effectively choosing to earn less, the appellate court upheld the reduction in support because the trial court's decision was supported by some evidence (health issues, new marriage). It highlights that the rule against voluntary underemployment (from Iliff) is not absolute; if a parent provides a reason for not working that isn't purely about dodging payments, a trial court may accept it. Additionally, the case clarifies the distinction between 'child support' (monetary) and 'possession' (custody) for jurisdictional purposes under the UCCJEA and UIFSA frameworks, establishing that travel expenses are financial issues that a court can modify even if the child no longer lives in the state.
