Marriage of Little v. Little
193 Ariz. 518, 975 P.2d 108 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining whether to modify a child support obligation due to a parent's voluntary decision to leave employment for school, a court must apply a balancing test centered on the best interests of the child. This test rejects simpler 'good faith' or 'strict rule' approaches in favor of a multi-factor analysis of the overall reasonableness of the parent's decision and its financial impact on the children.
Facts:
- Billy L. Little, Jr. and Lisa L. Little divorced in November 1995, at which time Billy was an Air Force lieutenant.
- The divorce decree ordered Billy L. Little, Jr. to pay $1,186 per month in child support for the couple's two children.
- At the time, Billy's position paid an annual salary of $48,000 plus benefits.
- In August 1996, Billy L. Little, Jr. voluntarily resigned his commission in the Air Force.
- Instead of seeking other employment, he enrolled as a full-time student at Arizona State University College of Law.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy L. Little, Jr. petitioned the state trial court to reduce his child support obligation.
- The trial court denied the requested modification, finding no substantial and continuing change in circumstances, but did reduce the obligation to $972 per month based on Lisa L. Little's increased income.
- Billy L. Little, Jr., as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals, applying a 'good faith test,' reversed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Arizona granted review of the court of appeals' decision.
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 non-custodial parent's voluntary decision to leave gainful employment to enroll in full-time education constitute a substantial and continuing change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of their child support obligation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McGregor
No. A non-custodial parent's voluntary decision to leave gainful employment to enroll in school does not, in itself, constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a downward modification of a child support obligation. Instead, courts must apply a balancing test with the paramount consideration being the best interests of the child. The court rejected both the 'good faith test,' which improperly focuses on the parent's subjective motivation, and the 'strict rule test,' which is too inflexible. The adopted intermediate balancing test requires courts to first consider the financial impact on the child; if the reduction would place the child in 'financial peril,' modification should generally be denied. Courts must also weigh the reasonableness of the parent's decision by considering factors such as the parent's existing ability to find suitable work, the likelihood that education will increase earning potential, whether the children will benefit from that future increase, the parent's ability to finance support through other means, and whether the decision was made in good faith. Applying this test, the court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the requested reduction would cause the children 'immediate detriment,' the father already had marketable degrees, and he failed to consider his children's needs.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a new, definitive standard in Arizona for modifying child support when a parent voluntarily returns to school, replacing the subjective 'good faith' test with a more objective, child-centric balancing test. It strongly reinforces the legal principle that a parent's duty to support their children is their primary financial obligation, superseding personal ambitions for career changes that would harm the children's welfare. The ruling provides a clear, multi-factor framework for trial courts, aligning Arizona law with a national trend of stricter child support enforcement and making outcomes in similar cases more predictable.
