X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Mother and father divorced in 2003 and father was ordered to pay $475 per month in child support. A month later, in August 2003, father moved from Phoenix, where he was making $14 per hour, to El Paso, where he was making $7 per hour, and petitioned the court to modify his child support obligation, as he was making less money now. A hearing was held in November, where father testified that he was working 40 per week, living with a girlfriend at her brother’s home, driving his girlfriend’s car and trying to save money to buy a home. In February 2004 the trial court reduced father’s obligation to $343.50 per month. Mother filed a notice of appeal, then filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. No notice of past due findings and conclusions was filed. On appeal, mother argues that father is willfully underemployed for the purpose of evading his child support obligation. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first notes than in assessing mother’s complaint, it would have been helpful for the trial court to have articulated its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because none were, the court will presume that the facts were there to support the judgment. The court also notes that mother did not file a request for findings in compliance with Family Code 154.130, which requires that findings be made during the pendency of the request for modification. The court adds that in this case, the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law has not prevented mother from making a proper presentation of her case. So, even assuming that she made a proper request for findings, the error under this record is harmless. As to the precise question of whether the order reducing father’s obligation was supported, the court says there is no evidence of the father’s intentional underemployment. Nothing suggests that the reason father is employed in a position earning less money is for the purpose of evading his child support obligation, which is a “critical factor” the trial court impliedly found not to exist. When establishing an obligation, the trial court may consider factors such as the fact that father has been furnished an automobile and housing by other people. Again, because no contrary findings are included in the record, the court presumes that the trial court considered such evidence in determining the appropriate obligation. “There is no presumption that simply because a parent is no longer as lucratively employed as he was during his marriage, he is intentionally underemployed or unemployed. . . . The requisite intent or lack thereof, however, may be inferred from such circumstances as the parent’s business reversals, business background, and earning potential. . . . At the same time, we must keep in mind a parent’s right to pursue his or her own happiness.” OPINION:Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.