Opinion ID: 2639466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voluntarily Unemployed or Underemployed

Text: The phrase we construe in this opinion appears in Colorado's Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act. Under that Act, both parents have a duty to support their children. In any action to establish or modify child support, the child support guidelines create a rebuttable presumption as to the appropriate amount of the child support order based upon each parent's actual gross income, sections 14-10-115(3)(a) and (7)(a), 5 C.R.S. (2002). The court may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to pay an amount reasonable or necessary for the child's support, after considering all relevant factors. § 14-10-115(1), 5 C.R.S. (2002). Under section 14-10-115(7)(a), 5 C.R.S. (2002), income is defined as actual gross income of a parent, if employed to full capacity, or potential income, if unemployed or underemployed. Section 14-10-115 proceeds to provide that the trial court shall impute potential income if the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed: If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income; except that a determination of potential income shall not be made for a parent who is physically or mentally incapacitated or is caring for a child under the age of thirty months for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility. § 14-10-115(7)(b)(I), 5 C.R.S. (2002). The guidelines identify three circumstances in which a parent shall not be deemed `underemployed' : temporary employment reasonably intended to result in higher income; a good faith career choice; and enrollment in an educational program: (A) The employment is temporary and is reasonably intended to result in higher income within the foreseeable future; or (B) The employment is a good faith career choice which is not intended to deprive a child of support and does not unreasonably reduce the support available to a child; or (C) The parent is enrolled in an educational program which is reasonably intended to result in a degree or certification within a reasonable period of time and which will result in a higher income, so long as the educational program is a good faith career choice which is not intended to deprive the child of support and which does not unreasonably reduce the support available to a child. § 14-10-115(7)(b)(III)(A)-(C), 5 C.R.S. (2002). All three of these circumstances require a good faith, or reasonable, intent not to deprive the child of support. The second and third circumstances add that the parent's choice shall not unreasonably reduce the support available to the child. If any of these three circumstances exist, a trial court may not impute potential income to the parent. The legislature's listing of these three income imputation exemption circumstances nevertheless leaves open the question of when the trial court can or must impute income to a parent. Because the statute directs the trial court to calculate child support based upon potentialrather than actualincome only if the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, we begin by examining the meaning of the term voluntarily. The dictionary meaning of voluntarily is: Intentionally; without coercion, Black's Law Dictionary 1569 (7th ed.1999), and as of one's own free will, Webster's New International Dictionary 2564 (1993). Accordingly, we conclude that the term voluntarily has the meaning intentionally, of free will. Nevertheless, the statutory phrase voluntarily unemployed or underemployed is susceptible to alternative constructions: (1) the one adopted by the court of appeals that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if, after being fired, he or she does not attempt in good faith to obtain new employment at a comparable salary or refuses to accept suitable employment offers; or (2) the other urged by the People that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if the parent has been fired for misconduct from a higher paying job. The trial courts focused on the parent's fault in getting fired. The court of appeals focused on the parent's subsequent course of action and decision making. The trial court[s] should have considered the reasonableness of father's attempts, if any, to obtain comparable employment and pay following his firings. J.R.T., 55 P.3d at 220. Courts in other jurisdictions differ from one another over the construction of statutory terms similar to ours. See, e.g., Savage v. Savage, 821 So.2d 603, 606-07 (La.App.2002) (being voluntarily unemployed results from an intentional act of misconduct which leads to unemployment); Lee v. Lee, 459 N.W.2d 365, 370 (Minn.App.1990) (stating that parent is voluntarily unemployed only if the parent intends to get fired in order to avoid paying child support); Wilson v. Wilson, 43 S.W.3d 495, 497 (Tenn.App.2000) (holding that voluntary unemployment or underemployment results from an intent on the part of the parent to reduce or terminate his or her income). Because Colorado's statutory language is susceptible to alternative constructions, we look to the statute as a whole and to the legislative history in determining the General Assembly's intent.