Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 17-0782 FC
03-07-2019
In re the Matter of: BRADLEY DAVID HENDRICKS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. STEPHANIE MICHELLE LOVE, Respondent/Appellee.
COUNSEL Bradley D. Hendricks, Maricopa Petitioner/Appellant Stephanie M. Love, Chandler Respondent/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2006-091472
The Honorable Brian D. Kaiser, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Bradley D. Hendricks, Maricopa
Petitioner/Appellant
Stephanie M. Love, Chandler
Respondent/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
PERKINS, Judge:
¶1 Bradley Hendricks ("Father") appeals the trial court's order modifying child support arguing the court failed to comply with Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 25-320, the Arizona Child Support Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Father and Stephanie Love ("Mother") are the parents of a minor child. In August 2017, Mother petitioned for a modification of her ongoing child support obligation, alleging a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. According to Mother's petition, she was experiencing significant financial hardship because she had elected to enroll in a full-time doctoral program and consequently could only work part-time.
¶3 The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in October 2017 and granted Mother's petition. The court, for reasons stated on the record during the hearing, attributed Mother $4,000.00 per month and Father $2,250.00 per month in gross income. The court reduced Mother's child support obligation to $58.15 from $250.00 per month, plus $50.00 in arrears per month. Father now appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶4 We review child support awards for abuse of discretion. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 30, ¶ 6 (App. 2002). We will accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Birnstihl v. Birnstihl, 243 Ariz. 588, 590-91, ¶ 8 (App. 2018). In contrast, we review matters of statutory interpretation, including application of the Guidelines, de novo. Id.
¶5 Father argues that Mother's testimony proves her reduction in income was voluntary and not in the best interests of the child. Father additionally argues the trial court failed to make appropriate written
findings to support a downward deviation in accordance with Guidelines § 20(A). See A.R.S. § 25-320(20)(A)(3).
¶6 During the October 2017 hearing on Mother's petition, Mother testified that she voluntarily reduced her income to pursue a doctoral degree. Mother testified that she currently makes approximately $780 per month, but planned to work between 12 and 15 hours per week at a rate of $30 per hour. Even assuming Mother worked 15 hours per week, her monthly income would not exceed $1,800 dollars. The court found that Mother's reduction in income was voluntary, and accordingly, attributed Mother significantly greater income than she is actually earning. Noting that Mother previously earned $6,000 per month and her newly reduced income otherwise would require Father to pay her child support, the court attributed Mother $4,000.00 per month in gross earnings. Contrary to Father's assertion on appeal, however, the court did not order a downward deviation in child support; instead, the court acknowledged Mother's decision to voluntarily reduce her income, attributed Mother more income than she is making, and reduced Mother's monthly child support obligation.
¶7 The court declined to attribute Mother her prior full-time earning capacity. The trial court has discretion to take testimony and weigh evidence in determining whether to attribute a parent additional income when that parent chooses to reduce his or her actual income. See Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 522-23, ¶¶ 13-14 (1999) (describing Arizona's intermediate balancing test for attributing additional income to a parent who has voluntarily accepted reduced income to pursue, inter alia, educational opportunities). Because the court found Mother's reduction in income was voluntary, elected to attribute Mother additional income above her actual earnings, and did not deviate from the Guidelines in modifying Mother's child support obligation, the court did not abuse its discretion.
CONCLUSION
¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order modifying child support. We grant Mother her taxable costs upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.