Court Opinion

ID: 9954597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 17:03:27.664421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:58.126212
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                  AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

                                     IN THE
              ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                 DIVISION ONE

              MICHAEL M. MORITOMO, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

      STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
                   SECURITY, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                        and

                     TINA FISCHER, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 23-0227 FC
                                FILED 3-26-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
             No. FC2002-004790, FC2017-053288 (Consolidated)
                  The Honorable Michelle Carson, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Michael M. Moritomo, Humboldt
Petitioner/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer Blum
Counsel for Petitioner /Appellee

Tina Fischer
Respondent /Appellee
                      MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                          Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1           Petitioner Michael Moritomo (“Father”) appeals the superior
court’s ruling modifying his child support obligation to Tina Fischer
(“Mother”). For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             In 2017, after Mother petitioned for child support, the court
ordered Father to pay temporary child support to Mother for three of their
common children: H.M., E.M., and L.M. The court issued final orders in
2018, listing a monthly income of $5,416.67 for Father on the child support
worksheet. About a year later, Father moved to modify the order citing a
change of circumstances, namely that Mother was emotionally
manipulating the children against him. To determine the amount of income
that should be attributed to Father, the court heard, among other things,
evidence that he ran an insurance company, that he previously held an
insurance agent’s license, that the loss of his license limited his ability to
conduct certain business, that he cohabitated with his significant other for
years, and that he split costs with his significant other. The court found that
he was receiving a continuing gift from his significant other and attributed
to him the same amount of income as the 2018 order.

¶3             In 2022, Father again moved to modify his child support
order. His request alleged three changed circumstances justifying
modification: (1) he fathered a new child, (2) he became a stay-at-home
father, and (3) H.M. had emancipated. At trial, Father testified that he is
currently a stay-at-home father with no income and that he last worked
from 2016 until 2019 making between $12,000 and $20,000 per year. He
further testified that he lived with—and cared for—four of his other
children, none of whom he shared with Mother. He testified that he
volunteers his time coaching and supporting youth athletes. He also
testified that when he possessed his license to sell insurance, he made

                                      2
                     MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                         Decision of the Court

between $35,000 and $50,000 per year and he twice unsuccessfully sought
to regain the license, in 2013 and 2015. Father’s significant other testified
that she had been paying his child support from her account because Father
did not have a bank account or any income.

¶4           The superior court partially granted the motion, finding that
one child had emancipated and that Father was supporting one child at his
home. But the court again attributed to Father the same amount of income
used for the previous orders and denied including three other children
living with him and his significant other because he failed to provide an
acknowledgement of paternity for those children. Ultimately, Father’s child
support order increased, even with the consideration of the change of
circumstances.

¶5            Father timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶6              Child support orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion,
viewing the record “in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s
decision.” Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999). But a court’s
attribution of income to a parent is reviewed de novo. See Pullen v. Pullen,
223 Ariz. 293, 295, ¶ 9 (App. 2009). The superior court abuses its discretion
if its order lacks a competent evidentiary basis. Little, 193 Ariz. at 520, ¶ 5.
To modify a child support order, the moving party bears the burden of
proving that substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that
warrant modifying the support. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 215 Ariz. 35, 39, ¶ 16
(App. 2007); see also A.R.S. § 25-327(A).

I.     The Superior Court Did Not Err by Attributing Income to Father.

¶7            Father makes several arguments that the court erred in
attributing income to him. But each argument fails.

              A. The superior court properly attributed income to Father
                 on the presumption that he could find suitable
                 employment.

¶8            Father argues that the record does not support attributing
over $5,000 of income per month to him for child support calculations.
Father points to his present unemployment and that his prior employment
did not earn him a comparable income.

                                       3
                     MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                         Decision of the Court

¶9             When a parent is unemployed, the court may attribute income
to that parent on the presumption that the parent is capable of full-time
employment earning at least minimum wage. A.R.S. § 25-320(N); A.R.S.
§ 25-320 app. (“Guidelines”) § II(A)(4). The presumption may be rebutted
by “contrary evidence” that the parent is incapable of such employment.
A.R.S. § 25-320(N). The court must balance various factors regarding why
the parent is unemployed before attributing income. Little, 193 Ariz. at 520,
¶ 4. The Guidelines provide guidance to focus the courts’ exercise of their
discretion. See id. at 521, ¶ 6 (“[T]he Guidelines are not substantive law, but
function rather as a source of guidance to trial courts in applying the
substantive statutory and case law.” (citation omitted)); Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz.
419, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2017) (“[T]he Guidelines do not replace the exercise of
trial court discretion; they focus it.” (internal quotations omitted)). “In
construing the Guidelines, [this Court] look[s] first to their plain language”
and “strive[s] to interpret the relevant section[s] in conjunction with other
provisions of the Guidelines and consistent with their overall purpose.”
Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612, 615, ¶ 10 (App. 2015) (citations
omitted). Factors that courts may consider when attributing income include
“[t]he parents’ assets, residence, employment and earnings history, job
skills, educational attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record and
other employment barriers, and record of seeking work,” along with “[t]he
local job market, the availability of employers willing to hire the parents,
the prevailing earnings level in the local community,” and the field of
employment’s standard full-time hours. Guidelines § II(A)(4)(d).

¶10            Here, the record reveals several factors supporting the court’s
attribution of income to Father. Father is below retirement age with no
alleged physical or mental disabilities preventing him from working. His
education and job skills previously permitted him to obtain an insurance
license and earn between $35,000 and $50,000 in the mid and early 2000s.
Although Father lost his insurance license and has twice failed to regain it,
the last denial was in 2015 and the record does not show that his efforts
would remain unsuccessful. Further, the record indicates that Father could
obtain alternative employment and that he has obtained employment since
losing his license. Father also participates in volunteer coaching activities
about three to four hours a day, seven days a week, which indicates he has
the time and capacity to work. He even testified that he would be willing to
quit these volunteer activities if required to pay his child support
obligations.

¶11             When a parent voluntarily becomes unemployed, the court
must also determine the reasonableness of that decision. Guidelines
§ II(A)(4)(e)(ii)-(iii). These additional factors that the court must consider

                                      4
                     MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                         Decision of the Court

include the financial impact on the children, the parent’s educational and
physical capacity to find work, whether the decision “is likely to increase
the parent’s earning potential,” whether the children are likely to benefit
from increased future income, whether the parent can pay the child support
obligation from other revenue sources, and whether the parent made the
decision in good faith. Little, 193 Ariz. at 522-23, ¶¶ 12-13.

¶12            Although this Court accepts that Father acted in good faith to
care for his other children, this factor alone does not demonstrate error. See
Milinovich, 236 Ariz. at 615, ¶ 10 (noting “that a parent’s child support
obligation is paramount” (quoting Little, 193 Ariz. at 521, ¶ 6)). Father’s
decision to stay home with his other children or do volunteer work will not
increase his earning potential which would benefit his children under the
child support order in the long run. Also, though the loss of his insurance
license does mean he cannot do work requiring the license, his work history
has demonstrated that he has run a company and worked in other
capacities. Substantial evidence supports a finding that it is possible for him
to find suitable work even without an insurance license. The record also
shows that Father’s obligation has consistently been—and is currently
being—satisfied by his significant other. Balancing these factors and the
premise that Father’s child support obligation is paramount, his voluntary
unemployment is unreasonable and supports the court’s attribution of
income.

              B. The superior court properly attributed recurring benefits
                 and gifts from his significant other in determining Father’s
                 income.

¶13            Father also contends that the court erred by attributing his
significant other’s income to him. This Court agrees that the income of a
non-parent, such as a new spouse or significant other, is not automatically
included in the parent’s income. Guidelines § II(A)(2)(c). But the court can
consider benefits derived from a new relationship. See Cummings v.
Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383, 387 (App. 1994) (“[I]n considering the equities
affecting child support, a court may still take into account any regular and
substantial benefits a parent receives from remarriage.”). Also, a parent’s
income for child support purposes includes “recurring gifts.” Guidelines
§ II(A)(1)(b). Here, Father’s significant other paid his monthly child support
and arrears payments, totaling about $1,100 per month from her own
wages. These payments directly supported Father. In addition, Father is
living free from the burden of monthly rent or mortgage expenses and other
living expenses which are being paid by his significant other. These are

                                      5
                     MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                         Decision of the Court

recurring benefits Father derives from his relationship with his significant
other and may be properly attributed to him as income.

              C. The superior court properly considered Father’s ability to
                 pay.

¶14           Child support payments must consider a parent’s ability to
pay. Guidelines § I(B)(1); see also In re Marriage of Allen, 241 Ariz. 314, 317,
¶ 13 (App. 2016) (noting that the parents’ ability to pay is one public policy
consideration rooted in the Guidelines). But the Guidelines account for a
parent’s need “to maintain at least a minimum standard of living” by
including a Self-Support Reserve Test. Guidelines § VIII(A). Here, the court
properly applied the test when calculating Father’s child support.

              D. The superior court was not required to make specific
                 findings.

¶15           For family court orders, the superior court is not required to
make specific findings of fact unless a party so requests, see Ariz. R. Fam.
Law P. 82(a)(1), or if the court deviates from the amount of child support
calculated by the Guidelines, Nia, 242 Ariz. at 424, ¶¶ 19–20.

¶16           Here, no party requested written factual findings pursuant to
Rule 82(a)(1). And the superior court did not deviate from the child support
calculated using the Guidelines’ mechanism, so it was not required to make
findings under Nia, supra. After review of the record, this Court finds no
error with the court’s attribution of income to Father and ultimate
calculation of child support.

II.    The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Not
       Including the Other Three Children.

¶17           Father contends that the court erred by not including his three
other children who reside with him and his significant other in the child
support calculation. Parents’ legal obligations to support other children
may impact their child support obligation for the children at issue in an
order, but when no legal obligation exists, child support is not impacted.
Compare Guidelines § II(B)(2)(d) (“If a parent is the primary residential
parent of a child from other relationships, that parent’s Child Support
Income may be reduced.”) with § I(C)(1) (“The ‘support’ of other persons,
such as stepchildren, is considered voluntary and does not impact the child
support determined under the Guidelines.”).

                                       6
                     MORITOMO v. STATE/FISCHER
                         Decision of the Court

¶18            Here, the court credited Father with supporting one
additional child because it had already found that Father was the legal
parent in a prior proceeding. As for the other three children, Father and his
significant other testified that the children are theirs in common. But they
never married, and paternity is not presumed if the child is born out of
wedlock unless there is genetic testing, a signed birth certificate, or a
notarized or witnessed voluntary acknowledgment. See A.R.S. § 25-814(A).
Although Father testified that he signed the three children’s birth
certificates, the court never received supporting documentary evidence.
Further, the court specifically found Father was not a credible witness.
Thus, the court did not err by finding Father failed to establish that he was
the father of the other three children. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz.
277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019) (“On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence but
defer to the family court’s determinations of witness credibility and the
weight given to conflicting evidence.”).

¶19           Even if the court found the evidence of Father’s paternity
adequate, whether to credit a parent with the support of other children lies
within the superior court’s discretion. See Guidelines § II(B)(2)(d) (“If a
parent is the primary residential parent of a child from other relationships,
that parent’s Child Support Income may be reduced.”) (emphasis added);
In re Marriage of Pacific, 168 Ariz. 460, 465 (App. 1991) (“[W]e find no abuse
of discretion in the court’s decision to credit Mother but not Father for
supporting other children.”). Notably, in 2019, the superior court addressed
this same issue in a footnote when calculating Father’s child support
obligation. At that time, it found that crediting Father for his other children
was not in the best interests of the children affected by the order.

¶20          The superior court did not abuse its discretion in including
only one of Father’s additional children in its child support calculation.

                               CONCLUSION

¶21           For the reasons above, the court’s child support order is
affirmed.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                         7