Sharpe v. Sharpe

Alaska Supreme Court
366 P.3d 66 (2016)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a non-custodial parent voluntarily becomes unemployed for personal, cultural, or spiritual reasons, a court may impute income based on the parent's prior earning capacity if the decision has an unreasonable financial impact on the child. The parent's duty to support their child is prioritized over even legitimate personal choices that result in reduced income.

Facts:

Jolene Lyon and Jyzyk Sharpe divorced in 2012, with Jyzyk receiving primary physical custody of their child.
Jolene, a Yupik Eskimo, was living in Anchorage and working at Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, earning approximately $120,000 per year.
During her marriage, Jolene had experienced issues with alcohol abuse.
In April 2018, Jolene quit her job in Anchorage.
She then moved to the remote native village of Stebbins, a "dry" community where she had family ties.
In Stebbins, Jolene adopted a subsistence lifestyle to connect with her cultural, spiritual, and religious heritage, and had no intention of seeking employment.

Procedural Posture:

Upon their divorce in superior court in 2012, Jyzyk Sharpe was awarded primary physical custody of the child, and Jolene Lyon was ordered to pay $1,507.00 per month in child support.
In 2018, Jolene filed a motion in the superior court (trial court) to modify her child support order, requesting a reduction to the minimum of $50 per month.
Jyzyk opposed the motion, arguing that Jolene was voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed.
After holding an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Jolene's motion to modify the child support order.
Jolene appealed the superior court's denial to the Alaska Supreme Court.

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 court abuse its discretion by refusing to modify a non-custodial parent's child support obligation when that parent voluntarily quits a high-paying job to move to a remote village and adopt a subsistence lifestyle for cultural and spiritual reasons, thereby becoming unemployed?

Opinions:

Majority - Bolger, Justice

No. A court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to modify the child support obligation, as the parent's duty to meet their child support obligations is prioritized over even legitimate decisions to be voluntarily unemployed. The core of the inquiry is the financial impact of the parent's decision on the child. Citing precedent like Pattee v. Pattee and Olmstead v. Ziegler, the court emphasized that children should not be forced to finance a noncustodial parent's career or lifestyle change. The superior court properly weighed Jolene's personal, cultural, and rehabilitative needs against her daughter's need for financial support and correctly concluded that her decision to earn nothing would have an unreasonable financial impact on the child. The court rejected the dissent's proposed two-step analysis (first assessing the move's reasonableness, then the unemployment) as unsupported by case law. Finally, since Jolene's free exercise of religion claim was not raised at the trial level, it was reviewed for plain error, and none was found because the evidentiary record was not developed on that issue.

Dissenting - Winfree, Justice

Yes. The superior court abused its discretion by conflating the reasonableness of Jolene's relocation with the reasonableness of her unemployment and by basing imputed income on her former job in Anchorage. The court should have first determined that Jolene's move to Stebbins—for cultural, spiritual, and sobriety reasons—was legitimate. Once a move is deemed legitimate, any income imputation must be based on the job opportunities available in the parent's new location (Stebbins), not the old one. The trial court's hypothetical comparisons of Jolene's move to joining an ashram trivialized Alaska Native culture. The majority's decision effectively and unconstitutionally orders a non-custodial parent where to live and what job to hold.

Dissenting - Stowers, Justice

Yes. The case should be remanded for the superior court to reconsider the legitimacy of the mother's move and to analyze her potential unemployment based on her employment opportunities in Stebbins, not Anchorage. However, unlike the other dissent, this opinion finds that the mother's free exercise of religion claim was insufficient and conclusory on the current record because it was not properly raised or argued before the trial court. The mother would be free to develop that claim with evidence upon remand.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the primacy of a parent's child support obligation over their personal life choices, even those involving significant cultural and spiritual fulfillment. It establishes that courts will heavily weigh the financial detriment to the child when a non-custodial parent voluntarily reduces their income. The ruling rejects a bifurcated analysis for relocation and unemployment, instead favoring a single 'totality of the circumstances' test where the financial impact on the child is a paramount factor. This precedent may make it more difficult for non-custodial parents to justify significant income reductions based on lifestyle changes that do not ultimately benefit the child financially.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sharpe v. Sharpe (2016)

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

Premium Feature