Opinion ID: 2010807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Current Child Support Payments

Text: In calculating Lasché's initial current monthly payment for child support beginning in February 2007, the trial court looked principally to the year 2006. The court annualized Lasché's bank deposits for the first five months of 2006 and took note that Lasché is a highly educated person with both a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Masters Degree from Yale University. Lasché's sole objection is that the trial court erred in calculating his income for the purposes of this initial monthly child support payment by failing to deduct his ordinary and necessary business expenses from his gross earnings as a sea captain. However, as with the similar claimed error in the calculation of past-due child support, the trial court's failure to deduct Lasché's 2006 business expenses was not an abuse of discretion because Lasché provided no evidence of his expenses for 2006, which was the critical year in question. When asked during the hearing whether he had any figures regarding his 2006 income, Lasché replied, Ma'am, I rely on the instructions from counsel. I was not specifically instructed to do that, so I did not. Although Lasché's tax returns provide figures for his expenses in previous years, Lasché had worked as a computer consultant, [17] administrator, timber manager, carpenter, and sea captain since his return from Italy, and has earned a gross income ranging from $6,987 in 1996 to $13,985 in 2005. His monthly expenses during this time ranged from $3,477 to $7,539. Although the Child Support Guideline expressly calls for the deduction of reasonable and necessary business expenses, the burden to produce evidence of those reasonable and necessary business expenses must rest with the party seeking to deduct them because that party is uniquely situated to produce evidence of these expenses. See Wagley, supra note 8, 971 A.2d at 213 (concluding that trial court did not err in declining to credit an appellant with contributions allegedly made to children's education where the appellant provided no proof of the payments or their source). Here, not only did Lasché's profession and salary change on a regular basis, thereby preventing the court from accurately estimating his reasonable business expenses, but Lasché also failed to provide any evidence of his reasonable business expenses upon which the trial court could have relied. See D.C.Code § 16-916.01(d)(11) (2009 Supp.) (The judicial officer shall determine the adjusted gross income of each parent based on evidence, including pay stubs, tax returns, employer statements, affidavits, and oral testimony provided under oath.); Hight, supra, 757 A.2d at 759 (concluding that evidence was insufficient to support reduction of child support payment where father testified that his wife was ill and that he incurred expenses related to her illness but presented no documentation to this effect and did not state the total amount of those expenses or how they impaired his ability to meet his child support obligation). As such, the trial court had no means to determine Lasché's expenses for 2006 and in no way abused its discretion in declining to deduct them. [18] In support of its award of child support, the trial court also noted Lasché's earning potential. As stated by the trial court, [Lasché] is a highly educated person, with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Masters Degree from Yale University in Public and private Administration. Although child support orders should not be punitive, see Mims v. Mims, 635 A.2d 320, 323 (D.C. 1993) (Child support is not intended to punish the father, but rather to ensure a decent standard of living for the child.), we have consistently held that a parent may not purposefully curtail his or her earning capacity to reduce child support payments. See, e.g., Lewis, supra, 637 A.2d at 73 ( Voluntary reduction of income or self-imposed curtailment of earning capacity ordinarily does not affect the spouse's obligation to pay.); Freeman v. Freeman, 397 A.2d 554, 556 (D.C.1979) ([I]t is well established that a parent subject to a court order to support children cannot escape that duty by voluntarily reducing his or her income ... by a self-imposed curtailment of earning capacity). [19] Because Lasché failed to provide any evidence of his business expenses for 2006, and because the trial court properly relied on Lasché's earning potential, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Lasché's current child support payments.