(1) Child support order appropriate where mother stopped working so she can raise child from second marriage (2) Bad faith need not be shown to base an order on earning capacity (3) Second husband’s income can be considered as part of mother’s total economic circumstances.
Trial court did not fully consider statutory factors when it did not mention wife’s ability to become self-supporting in the future.
Voluntarily leaving job was unreasonable and court can impute earnings.
(1) Two tier orders does not apply as percentage standards are mandatory on modification (2) Decision by father to return to school was reasonable (3) Children benefit by more than just dollars – financial compensation is not exclusive factor.
Court can set child support based on potential income where father returned to school.
Shirking does not require a finding that a spouse deliberately reduced earnings.
Incarceration is a valid factor for a family court to consider in setting child support.
Court properly exercised discretion by basing maintenance on wife’s actual earnings, rather than basing on a 40-hour work week, as this is what she had done in the past. The court also properly exercised discretion in not imputing income to husband for moonlighting where husband was working 45 hours per week.
While a trial court can consider incarceration when as a basis for a request for a modification in child support, the fact of incarceration by itself neither mandates nor prevents modification. Incarceration is one factor to be considered, but the determination should be made on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the relevant circumstances.
Standard of appellate review for shirking is that an appellate court should independently determine the issue of reasonableness, giving appropriate deference to the circuit court.