Little v. Little - 193 Ariz. 518, 975 P.2d 108 (1999)

Rule:

A court, rather than rely upon a good faith test, must balance a number of factors to determine whether to modify a child support order to reflect a substantial and continuing change of circumstances.

Facts:

After the parties divorced, the court ordered appellant Billy L. Little, Jr., an Air Force lieutenant, to pay $ 1,186 per month for the support of his two young children. In August 1996, appellant resigned his commission in the Air Force, a position that paid $ 48,000 in yearly salary plus benefits, and chose to enroll as a full-time student at Arizona State University College of Law rather than to seek employment. Upon leaving the Air Force, appellant petitioned the court to reduce his child support obligation to $ 239 per month. The trial court concluded that appellant had failed to prove a substantial and continuing change of circumstances in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 25-327.A and 25-503.F, and denied his request for modification. The trial court specifically found that appellant voluntarily left his employment to further his own ambition; that he failed to consider the needs of his children when he made that decision; and that to reduce his child support obligation would be to his children's immediate detriment and their previously established needs. The trial court, however, reduced appellant’s child support obligation to $ 972 per month on the ground that appellee Lisa L. Little had acquired a higher paying job. The court of appeals, applying a good faith test to determine whether appellant acted reasonably in voluntarily leaving his employment, held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant's decision to terminate his employment and pursue a law degree was unreasonable.

Issue:

Did the appellate court correctly rely upon a good faith test in determining whether the child support order should be modified? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On further appeal, the court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment. To determine whether to modify a child support order to reflect a substantial and continuing change of circumstances, the trial court was required to balance a number of factors rather than rely upon a good faith test. The trial court did not abuse its discretion because the requested reduction would have had a substantial negative impact on appellant's children, there was no evidence that appellant would earn more after he held a law degree, no evidence suggested appellant attempted to obtain employment to fulfill his financial obligations to his children, appellant could fulfill his obligations by part-time jobs and student loans, and appellant did not act in good faith.