Opinion ID: 1917510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Family Division's Order Finding the Father in Contempt

Text: The father raises several challenges to the family division's decree that he is not in compliance with the support order. First, he argues that the family division unsustainably exercised its discretion when it found that he was voluntarily underemployed and not in compliance with the support order. Next, he contends that the court erred in requiring him to submit income tax returns for 2001 to 2005 because they do not reflect his present income. Finally, he challenges the court's finding that he is $29,901.84 in arrears. DHHS contends that the Salem Family Division properly found he was voluntarily underemployed and that he failed to comply with the support order. We agree. The court's powers in custody, maintenance, and education of children in divorce and separation cases are conferred entirely by statute. We afford broad discretion to the trial court in divorce matters, and will not disturb the trial court's rulings regarding child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law. In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson, 158 N.H. 555, 558, 969 A.2d 365 (2009) (quotation omitted). The party challenging the court's order has the burden of showing that the order was improper and unfair. Id. (quotation omitted). The father has not met this burden. We cannot conclude that the family division unsustainably exercised its discretion when it found the father failed to comply with the support order. At the hearing, the father provided no evidence to show that his financial circumstances had changed, thus requiring a modification of the support order. The only evidence before the family division was a financial affidavit the father submitted. In addition, the family division found the father to be voluntarily underemployed [b]ased upon his most current financial affidavit and the total absence of any evidence that he is physically or mentally incapacitated. This was further supported by the lack of any requests since 2005 to modify his obligation based upon a substantial change in circumstances. Next, we address the father's argument that the family division improperly required him to submit his tax returns for the years 2001-2005. When calculating a parent's child support obligation, the court must first determine the parent's present income. Feddersen, 149 N.H. at 196, 816 A.2d 1033 (2003). It is up to the trial court to decide what income figures should be used based upon the facts presented at the hearing and the credibility and forthrightness of the noncustodial parent in disclosing income. Id. (quotations omitted). This includes the use of past tax returns when the obligor provides misleading information on the financial affidavit. Id. at 197, 816 A.2d 1033. Here, the family division observed that the father's reported income and expenses as well as his attitude and demeanor raised doubts about his credibility and forthrightness. Therefore, the family division properly ordered the father to submit the past tax returns to aid in establishing his present income. Finally, the father contests the family division's finding that he owes $29,901.84, arguing that he only owes $5,743 because that was the amount owed when we issued our decision in Jeffrey G. As set forth above, support orders remain in effect until they are judicially modified. See In the Matter of Haller & Mills, 150 N.H. 427, 429-30, 839 A.2d 18 (2003). Because the Salem Family Division issued no subsequent orders modifying the support order, the father's obligation remained intact. Consequently, we cannot conclude that the family division unsustainably exercised its discretion when it found that the father owed $29,901.84 as of July 25, 2008. We have reviewed the father's remaining arguments and hold that they lack merit and warrant no extended consideration. Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322, 627 A.2d 595 (1993). Affirmed.