Opinion
No. 5-566 / 04-1543
Filed August 17, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.
A wife appeals from the child and medical support provisions of the decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED.
Richard D. Stochl of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Stochl, Braun Churbuck, New Hampton, for appellant.
Aaron Murphy of Walk Murphy, Osage, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
Stacy Opat appeals from the child and medical support provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Michael Opat. Upon our de novo review, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we affirm the district court.
Stacy and Michael were married in 1993. The parties have four children: Hannah, born in 1994; Emyleigh, born in 1996; Sara, born in 2000; and Olivia, born in 2002. Stacy filed a petition to dissolve the parties' marriage in March 2004. At the time Stacy was employed with the Iowa Department of Agriculture, earning approximately $37,000 per year. Michael was employed by Alliant Energy (Alliant), where he earned approximately $58,000 per year, and had access to family health insurance at the cost of approximately forty dollars per month.
In June 2004, citing psychological and emotional stressors associated with the divorce, Michael notified Alliant of his intent to quit his position as a utility line maintenance foreman. Alliant granted Michael a six-month unpaid leave of absence, which allowed him to return to his position at the company, with full benefits, up until December 24, 2004. Shortly thereafter, Michael obtained employment with a friend's company, Better Life, Inc., as a truck driver. In the new position Michael earns approximately $45,000 and does not have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.
Michael did not request a leave of absence.
By the time of the September 2004 trial, the parties had stipulated to the resolution of most issues. The parties agreed they would share legal custody of the children and Stacy would be awarded the children's physical care. The court was asked to resolve child support issues.
The court was also asked to resolve the question of property equalization payments and the division of a limited number of household furnishings. The court's decisions on these matters are not at issue on appeal.
In calculating Michael's child support obligation, the court utilized Michael's actual, current income of $45,000. The court ordered Stacy to provide health insurance coverage for the children, which was available from her employer for somewhere between $209 and $230 per month. As the custodial parent, Stacy was ordered to pay the first $250 per year per child of uncovered medical expenses, up to a maximum of $500 per year for all children. The court further ordered that Stacy was to pay forty-four percent and Michael was to pay fifty-six percent of uncovered medical expenses beyond these maximums.
On appeal, Stacy first asserts that Michael's support obligation should be calculated by using his earning capacity as measured by his former income at Alliant, rather than his current income at Better Life, Inc. In Iowa, there is a rebuttable presumption that application of the Child Support Guidelines, which utilize a party's actual net income, results in the correct amount of child support. Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(a) (2003); Iowa Ct. Rs. 9.4, 9.5. However, the court may vary from the amount of support that would result from an application of the guidelines if substantial injustice would result to the children or either party, or if it is necessary to provide for the children's needs and to do justice between the parties under the special circumstances of the case. Iowa Ct. R. 9.9.
Stacy does not claim that additional support is required to meet the children's needs, but asserts that calculating Michael's child support obligation based upon his current income results in a substantial injustice to the children. She contends that Michael's decision to voluntarily reduce his income deprived the children of a post-dissolution standard of living closer to that which they enjoyed during the parties' marriage.
In considering whether we should deviate from the guidelines and set support using Michael's former income, we look to the principle that parents should not gain an advantage in child support determinations "by reducing their earning capacity and ability to pay support through improper intent or reckless conduct." In re Marriage of Foley, 501 N.W.2d 497, 499 (Iowa 1993). As the foregoing indicates, not every voluntary reduction in income warrants a departure from the guidelines.
In this matter the district court found that Michael left his employment with Alliant "due to the difficulty he was having dealing with the parties' divorce," that Michael "does not contemplate returning to his employment with Alliant," and that Michael's change in employment "was [not] done for the purpose of minimizing his child support obligation." We not only give weight to these findings, Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g), we concur in them.
Among other things, Michael's job at Alliant required him to work with high voltage current at elevated heights. There was credible evidence that Michael was depressed and distraught as a result of the pending dissolution and felt unable to continue in his current position. Michael's mental state also raised concerns with his supervisor at Alliant. In addition, Michael testified that it was physically difficult to perform his job with Alliant because of a prior back injury. Significantly, after leaving his job at Alliant, Michael immediately obtained new employment earning a good salary.
When asked if it was best that Michael no longer worked around live power lines, given his depressed and distraught state, Michael's supervisor testified, "We — we were at the point where we watched him very close. Everybody was aware of the situation and acted accordingly."
Michael broke his back in 1991. In 2001, after suffering a work-related back injury, Michael underwent back surgery and was off work for five months. He currently has a sixteen-inch metal rod in his back.
We conclude that Michael's reduction in income was not improperly motivated or the result of reckless conduct. Moreover, while ensuring a pre-dissolution standard of living may be a valid consideration in cases where the payor's high level of income requires the court to exercise its discretion in setting child support, see In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991); In re Marriage of Krone, 530 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995), a lower standard of living is not in and of itself a "substantial injustice" that authorizes variance from the Child Support Guidelines. Under the record in this case we see no basis to depart from the guidelines by using Michael's former income to calculate his child support obligation. As the district court mentioned, Michael's child support obligation can be modified if he returns to his former job.
We now turn to Stacy's claim that Michael should be required to pay all, or at least some, of the health insurance premium. To place this claim in context we must note that, in all respects, the district court followed the Child Support Guidelines. Thus, in calculating Stacy's net income, the court included a deduction for health insurance premiums. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.5(6). The premium deduction, by decreasing Stacy's net monthly income, increased the amount of Michael's monthly child support obligation. Conversely, if Michael were to bear all or part of the expense of the health insurance premium, it would decrease his monthly support obligation.
Although the costs of insurance premiums may be considered as a reason to vary from the Child Support Guidelines, Iowa Code § 598.21(4)(a), we do not find such a departure necessary or justified under the circumstances of this case. There is no evidence that the premium for Stacy's employer-sponsored insurance plan is unreasonable, see In re Marriage of See, 566 N.W.2d 511, 512 (Iowa 1997), and despite her protest to the contrary during trial, we see no convincing evidence that paying the monthly premium is beyond Stacy's means.
Rather, Stacy requests reallocation of the insurance premium obligation because she holds Michael responsible for "selfish[ly]" leaving his job at Alliant, and the resulting increase in family health insurance premiums. However, as we have already noted, the evidence credibly demonstrates that Michael's change in careers was legitimately motivated. Moreover, we do not find the disparity in the parties' incomes to be so great that it is inequitable to require Stacy to bear the entire cost of the insurance premiums.
The district court's dissolution decree is affirmed in all respects.