Opinion ID: 1946195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Child Support Deviation Based on Mother's Voluntary Income Reduction.

Text: [¶12.] The circuit court granted a deviation for Father based on Mother's voluntary reduction in income pursuant to SDCL 25-7-6.10(6). Mother argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting this deviation. Mother further asserts that the statute does not apply to her situation because she had not decreased her income. Father, however, contends that the deviation applies because Mother's underemployment is the equivalent of a voluntary reduction of income. [¶13.] The obligation to support one's children is not only a matter of public policy, but is also statutory. Kost v. Kost, 515 NW2d 209, 214 (SD 1994) (citing SDCL 25-5-18.1; SDCL 25-7-6.1). The South Dakota support obligation schedule establishes monthly child support payments based on parental income. SDCL 25-7-6.2. This statute requires that [e]xcept as provided in this chapter, the combined monthly net incomes of both parents shall be used in determining the obligation and divided proportionately between the parents based upon their respective net incomes. Id. The South Dakota Legislature enacted the provisions in Chapter 25-7 to provide guidance in child support determinations. [¶14.] Chapter 25-7 provides additional guidance for calculating child support in special situations. Each parent is presumed capable of earning minimum wage. SDCL 25-7-6.4 [I]t shall be presumed for the purposes of determination of child support that a parent is capable of being employed at the minimum wage and his child support obligation shall be computed at a rate not less than full-time employment at the state minimum wage. Id . In addition, SDCL 25-7-6.10 provides six factors that may be considered in order to deviate from the child support schedule. One of the factors for consideration is [t] he voluntary act of either parent which reduces that parent's income . [5] SDCL 25-7-6.10(6) (emphasis added). But, [t]here may be no deviation from the guidelines unless there is an entry of specific findings concerning factors for deviation listed in SDCL 25-7-6.10. Schwab v. Schwab, 505 NW2d 752, 756 (SD 1993) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 451 NW2d 293 (SD 1990)). Mother argues that the circuit court erroneously allowed a deviation for Father under SDCL 25-7-6.10(6) based on a finding that Mother had voluntarily reduced her income. We have previously affirmed deviations from the support obligation schedule based on voluntary reduction of income; however, none of our prior cases dealt with voluntary underemployment. [¶15.] In a recent case, Kauth v. Bartlett , we determined that [t]he language of the statutes does not authorize automatically imputing a higher income when someone voluntarily takes a lower paying job. The only statute that even refers to imputed income is SDCL 25-7-6.4, which merely creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is capable of being employed at minimum wage. 2008 SD 20, ¶11, 746 NW2d 747, 751. The circuit court imputed Bartlett's former income for child support calculation rather than using his current lower income. Id. ¶12, 746 NW2d at 751. We reversed and remanded, holding that the support obligation must first be calculated using the parties' current incomes. Id. Only after this schedule calculation has been performed may a deviation, as set forth in SDCL 25-7-6.10, enter into the child support obligation equation. [6] Id. [¶16.] We have not had the occasion to consider the statute's application in a situation where a parent has consistently opted to work part-time. The evidence here showed that Mother had regularly worked part time in order to spend more time with her children. She did this before the divorce from Father and continued her reduced work schedule since the divorce, remarriage, and birth of another child. [¶17.] The South Dakota child support statutes do not specifically address voluntary underemployment. See generally SDCL 25-7. SDCL 25-7-6.10(6) only allows for a deviation in instances where [t]he voluntary act of either parent [ ] reduces that parent's income. [7] Id. (emphasis added). The circuit court interpreted the statutory language broadly by expanding the definition of reduc[ing] that parent's income to include voluntary underemployment. Specifically, the circuit court interpreted voluntary reduction of income to include voluntarily maintaining part-time employment rather than securing full-time employment commensurate with Mother's advanced degree. In order to determine if the statutory language encompasses a situation of underemployment, we look at its plain meaning. See State v. Moss, 2008 SD 64, ¶15, 754 NW2d 626, 631 (citing Goetz v. State , 2001 SD 138, ¶15, 636 NW2d 675, 681; In re West River Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 2004 SD 11, ¶15, 675 NW2d 222, 226). Specifically, at issue is whether the legislature, by using the term reduces, limited the deviation to those instances where a parent voluntarily lowered his/her income from a prior higher income; or, whether the legislature intended to include situations where a parent earned less than he/she could have earned had the parent obtained other employment or income opportunities equal to the parent's training or skills. [¶18.] Other states have included voluntary underemployment as a factor in child support determinations. For example, the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure allow courts to use the potential income of underemployed parents in child support determinations under certain circumstances. [8] AlaskaRCivP 90.3. Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, and Washington have similar rules or statutes. See De R FamCt RCP Rule 501; Fla Stat Ann 61.30 (2)(b); KyRevStatAnn 403.212(2)(d); WashRevCodeAnn 26.19.071(6). These states recognize that a court may impute income to a party it finds to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. McKinney v. McKinney, 257 SW3d 130, 134 (KyCtApp 2008); see also Sawicki v. Haxby, 186 P3d 546 (Alaska 2008); Strassner v. Strassner, 982 So2d 1224 (FlaDistCtApp 2008). [¶19.] Had the South Dakota Legislature intended to include voluntary underemployment as a factor, it could have specifically done so as other states have. The child support schedules are reviewed every four years and analyzed with public policy considerations taken into account. [9] SDCL 25-7-6.12. We have to assume that if the legislature wanted courts to consider underemployment and to impute higher incomes, it would have included such a provision in the law just as it did with the provision imputing minimum wage. In this case, the ultimate result of the downward deviation was to lower the amount of support and standard of living for the child. It is unlikely that the legislature contemplated such a result. We conclude that since the legislature used the word reduces, it meant to limit the deviation to those instances where a parent regularly made a higher income and purposely lowered it. [¶20.] The evidence before the referee was that Mother's income had changed very little since the divorce. In fact, her income was slightly higher in her current part-time position than her earnings at the time of the divorce. Because her income was less than minimum wage for the child support calculation, the referee imputed minimum wage pursuant to SDCL 25-7-6.4. The record is unclear as to Mother's current potential income. Even if the statute allowed a court to consider underemployment as a voluntary reduction of income, the statute requires specific findings to support a deviation. SDCL 25-7-6.10. Here, the circuit court provided no basis or explanation to support the amount of $152 as a downward deviation from the schedule. [¶21.] Thus, we determine that the South Dakota child support provision SDCL 25-7-6.10(6), which allows the referee/circuit court to consider a deviation based on a finding of voluntary reduction of income, does not allow a deviation in this case where Mother has not actually reduced her income. Mother may have the potential to earn more based on her advanced degree, but the legislature has not provided guidance on if, or how, the courts are to consider potential income or underemployment. Consequently, the circuit court erred in determining that Mother had voluntary reduced her income and in granting a downward deviation to Father's child support obligation.