In the present case, however, there was no determination of child support to be made. Father sought and received a total abatement of support for four months. Nonetheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the court was obligated to compute the presumptive amount of support before determining whether to abate father's obligation, we find any error of the trial court in failing to do so to be harmless under the facts of this case. Here, the evidence was undisputed that father's current income was zero. Had the court applied the guidelines, the presumptive amount of support owed by father would have been zero as well.
Mother next complains that the trial court erred in refusing to impute income to father.
DCSE ex rel. Thus, in order to prove a material change in circumstances that justifies a reduction in support, a parent must establish that he is not voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily under employed. However, mother cites no authority to support the proposition that the court's reliance on father's testimony alone was insufficient to support its finding. Indeed, father made a prima facie case that went unrebutted. Finally, mother argues that father should have taken another salaried job rather than becoming self-employed.