Maybe Lawyers Just Don’t Like Doctor’s
The Indiana Court of Appeals released an opinion on Monday that has many of us in the domestic relations bar (i.e. Attorneys who handle family law matters) a little shocked. The case, Edwin Eppler v. Jane Eppler, gives fairly broad discretion to the trial court to impose child support obligation above what normally be imposed based on current earnings of the parties.
I’m sure that Doctor Eppler may wonder at this point is attorneys just have it in for those in the medical field, but the case, like all cases, turns on more technical issues in the child support field.
What concerned me in the case was the court’s affirmation of the trial court’s use of the good doctor’s pre-filing income to set his child support. When the divorce was filed, the doctor reduced the number of shifts he worked, and thereby reduced his income. While acknowledging that the child support rules cannot be used to force a parent to work to their full potential, the Court determined that the reduction in income after filing of the divorce was a “voluntary reduction” under the support guidelines, and pre-filing income would be used.
The Court does not say it, but it is clear that the purpose of attributing to the good doctor his prior higher earnings was to prevent parents from intentionally reducing their incomes in a divorce to avoid the payment of child support.
My problem with this position is that it fails to acknowledge the changes that occur in regular family life during a separation and divorce. Parents who used to live together and pool parental reasources are suddenly trying to raise kids in 2 separate households. In my experience, this frequently causes parents to alter their works schedules, to be more available to parent their kids.
I guess it comes down to presumed intentions: A parent makes the choice to spend more time with their kids and less time at work in response to the breakup of their marriage and the courts presume the intention is to reduce child support. Having watched several families struggle with the changes that divorce brings, I would not be so quick to presume a financial motivation. Others may disagree.
Another part of this case that I do not like was the Court’s determination of the doctor’s complaint that he should have been permitted to claim the kids on his taxes. The Court said that is an issue to be determined, but, “[t]he noncustodial parent must demonstrate the tax consequences to each parent as a result of transferring the exemption and how such transfer would benefit the children.”
Since the doctor submitted no proof, the Court could not determine any error. I think this is a sound determination, but, from a personal perspective, I hate preparing tax returns, and being responsible to prep 1 for each party in a child support fight is no fun.
