No Voluntary Impoverishment by Moving
Kevin Moore, an auto mechanic in Baltimore, was paying his ex-wife, Kathryn Tseronis, $600 a month in child support for three children after his divorce in 1990. By 1993, he was remarried and making $37,488 a year. But his new wife, a lawyer who was staying at home with her two children, wanted to move back to her home in Garrett County. So he did.
The only job Kevin found work as an auto mechanic at a gas station in Garrett County. But it only paid $16,120 a year. He fell behind in his child support, couldn’t pay his household bills and had to file for bankruptcy. He petitioned the Court to reduce his child support based on his new income.
Kathryn’s attorney argued that child support should not be reduced because Kevin had voluntarily impoverished himself and the Court should use his potential income in Baltimore and not his actual income in Garrett County to calculate child support.
The child support guidelines set forth in FL § 12-201 et seq. say that the Court may use potential income when a parent voluntarily impoverishes himself or herself.
For the purposes of the child support guidelines, a parent shall be considered “voluntarily impoverished” whenever the parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or herself without adequate resource. Goldberger v. Goldberger, 96 Md. App. 313, 323-24, 624 A.2d 1328 (1993)
Goldberger went on to say the Court must look at ten factors to determine voluntary impoverishment:
1. his or her current physical condition;
2. his or her respective level of education;
3. the timing of any change in employment or financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings;
4. the relationship of the parties prior to the divorce proceedings;
5. his or her efforts to find and retain employment;
6. his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed;
7. whether he or she has ever withheld support;
8. his or her past work history;
9. the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and
10. any other considerations presented by either party.
So how would you rule if you were the judge? For Kevin or Kathryn? If you ruled for Kathryn because Kevin voluntarily impoverished himself, you would have reached the same conclusion of the Special Master and the Circuit Court. But you would be overturned by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which said:
We do not believe, however, that a court can restrict a parent’s choice of residence in order to insure that he or she remains in or moves to the highest wage earning area. While a parent must take into consideration his or her child support obligation when making job and location choices, such considerations should not be immobilizing. Moore v. Tseronis, 106 Md. App. 275, 664 A.2d 427 (1995).
Related posts:
