Opinion
No. 1-871 / 01-0876.
Filed March 27, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, KURT L. WILKE, Judge.
Appellant appeals the denial of his request to modify his child support obligation. AFFIRMED.
Monty L. Fisher, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Blake Parker, Fort Dodge, for appellee Karen Krog.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Ann Marie Brick, Deputy Attorney General, Rhonda E. Fitchett, Assistant Webster County Attorney, and Karla J. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Child Support Recovery Unit.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Upon the dissolution of the marriage of Daniel and Karen Krog, in October 1999, Daniel was ordered to pay $353.74 per month in child support. At that time he earned $7.00 per hour at Heartland Communications and an additional $800 per month as a part-time farm hand for his father and uncle. Soon after the divorce Daniel quit his job at Heartland and enrolled as a full-time student. Daniel then sought an administrative modification of his support obligation. Applying the Child Support Guidelines to Daniel's $800 per month farm income, the Child Support Recovery Unit determined his monthly support obligation should be reduced to $130. Karen appealed, and the matter was certified to the district court. The court found Daniel's modification request should be denied, and Daniel appeals. Our review of this matter is de novo, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, and we are free to affirm the decision of the district court upon any ground adequately appearing in the record. In re Marriage of Yanda, 528 N.W.2d 642, 645 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
Formerly Iowa R. App. P. 4.
The essence of Daniel's argument is that the district court was without authority to make an upward departure from the guideline amount, as it failed to find the use of his earning capacity was necessary to avoid substantial injustice, provide for his daughter's needs or otherwise do justice between the parties. See In re Marriage of Will, 602 N.W.2d 202, 205-06 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). This argument overlooks a crucial step in the modification process. Before a court can determine whether to apply or depart from the Child Support Guidelines, the petitioning party must establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification. See In re Marriage of Rietz, 602 N.W.2d 202, 229 (Iowa 1998). The district court ruling was succinct and did not explicitly find Daniel had failed to prove a substantial change. However, this finding can be implied from the court's reference to voluntary reductions in income and its belief Daniel had the earning capacity to meet the decretal child support obligation. Upon review of the record we also find no substantial change has occurred.
Daniel's only basis for claiming a substantial change in circumstances was his voluntary reduction in income. While he asserted the reduction was unavoidable, given his father and uncle's ill health, the demands of the farm and the current economy, prior to the hearing Daniel had successfully met his farm obligations while undertaking a full-time course of study. By the time of the court proceedings Daniel was thirty-eight years old, had no known health problems, and was about to supplement a previously-earned bachelor's degree in agricultural business with a new associate's degree in multi-media marketing. His current earning capacity is arguably greater than it was at the time of the divorce.
As Daniel has failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances, we affirm the decision of the district court. Karen has also requested attorney fees, as she was forced to defend the appeal. Upon review we find Karen should be awarded $1,000 in appellate attorney fees. Costs are assessed to Daniel.
AFFIRMED.