Opinion ID: 1865883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: circumstances regarding modification

Text: On March 25, 1988, Arnold filed an application to reduce the child support payments and claimed that there was a material change in circumstances after the decree because he was unemployed. Also, Arnold requested such other and further relief as may be just and equitable in the premises. At entry of the marital dissolution decree, Arnold was in partnership with Joseph Jones in the painting business and had an adjusted gross income of $37,522. Rose earned $12,000 as a clerk-typist. In 1987, subsequent to the Schulze decree, Arnold and Jones dissolved their partnership. After the partnership dissolution, Arnold kept all his painting equipment, including a truck, and had an income of approximately $25,000 for 1987, including nearly $22,000 in income which was attributable to Arnold's painting business and was reported on his 1987 federal income tax return. However, in 1988 Arnold accepted employment as a nurse's aide and received wages of $7,400 in 1988. Before reception of evidence at the modification hearing, the parties stipulated to a change of child visitation rights, that is, a change from the dissolution decree's provision for Arnold's reasonable and liberal visitation of the Schulze children. At the time of the modification hearing, Arnold, notwithstanding his allegation that he was not currently working, as expressed in his application to modify the marital dissolution decree, was receiving $4.32 per hour from his employment as a nurse's aide. Also, Arnold, who enjoyed good health, still had his painting equipment. Arnold has a bachelor's degree in elementary education and, through refresher courses, could obtain a teaching certificate. Arnold was substantially in arrears in his child support payments; for example, arrearages of $460 for 1987 and $5,465 for 1988. During the modification hearing, Arnold was asked questions about his employment: Q. In 1988, did you attempt to go to work as a painter for another contracting company? [Schulze:] No. Q. You've made no attempts in that regard? [Schulze:] No. Q. Did you make any attempts in that regard in 1987? [Schulze:] No. Q. Did you attempt to workto find work in any other business or trade other than painting or the nursing care trade that you're in now at the nursing home? [Schulze:] No. Q. What experience did you have to get the job as a nurse's aide? Do you have some training? [Schulze:] I hadI was under court order to find a job or go to jail. Jones, Arnold's former partner in the painting business, testified that, immediately after dissolution of his partnership with Arnold, Jones obtained employment as a painter at the rate of $11.50 per hour with an average of 40 hours per week. Rose continued to earn $12,000. One of the Schulze children in Rose's custody, 4-year-old Timothy, has cerebral palsy and is myelencephalic, with hearing and visual difficulties. Rose receives Social Security benefits which are strictly and solely for Timothy's needs. If Arnold were paying child support for Timothy in accordance with the initial decree, Rose would not receive any Social Security benefits for Timothy. Current living expenses for Rose and the three Schulze children are $1,758, but Rose must borrow from her family and a credit union to help pay those expenses. Based on the foregoing evidence, the district court reduced Arnold's child support payments to $75 per month per child, that is, a total of $225 per month for the three Schulze children in Rose's custody, and, in accordance with the parties' stipulation without supporting evidence, altered the visitation rights previously allowed in the initial dissolution decree of March 26, 1987.