ISSUE II ANALYSIS
The rule of law governing the modification of child support obligations is
New Mexico Statutes Annotated NMSA § 40-4-11.4, which provides: "A court may
modify a child support obligation upon a showing of material and substantial changes
in circumstances subsequent to the adjudication of the pre-existing order."
The Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed child support modification in Britton v.
Britton, 100 N.M. 424 (1983). In Britton, the Supreme Court declared: "Modification
of support obligations is strictly a matter to be determined by the courts." Id. at 430.
The obligor parent cannot unilaterally alter child support obligations. Id. at 430.
Wolcott v. Wolcott, 105 N.M. 608 (1987) is a New Mexico Court of Appeals case with
analogous facts and rules applicable to Mr. Arturo Garcia's case. In Wolcott,
Dr. Stephen Wolcott, the father and former husband, was a physician in New Mexico,
who closed his medical practice and voluntarily made a career change resulting in
reduced income. Dr. Wolcott unilaterally reduced his child support payments,
contrary to the terms of the marital settlement agreement and without judicial
approval.
The Wolcott fact pattern matches the narrative of Dr. Mary Chavez. Thus, the rules,
reasoning, and findings of the court are applicable to our client's case. The Wolcott
court emphasized that the recipient's actual need for support is the essential criterion.
The focal point is the children's actual need for support. The obligor parent has the
burden of proving to the trial court's satisfaction that circumstances had substantially
changed and, thereby, justifying his request for the modification. To justify
modification in child support, there must be evidence of a substantial change of
circumstances. A good faith career change, resulting in a decreased income, may
constitute a material change in circumstances that warrants a reduction in a spouse's
support obligations. This change does not automatically mandate a reduction in his
support obligation. Where the career change is not made in good faith, a reduction in
one's support obligations will not be warranted.
In Wolcott, the trial court found that the husband was not acting in good faith when he
voluntarily made his career change. Dr. Wolcott unilaterally reduced his monthly
child support and alimony payment, contrary to the terms of the marital settlement
agreement and without judicial approval or forewarning his former spouse. The court
took this disregard for financial obligations as a lack of good faith.
In Wolcott, good faith was the pivot with Dr. Wolcott and will likely be the pivotal
point with Dr. Mary Chavez. Like Dr. Wolcott, Dr. Mary Chavez is a physician in
New Mexico, who closed her medical practice and voluntarily made a career change
resulting in reduced income. Then Dr. Chavez unilaterally reduced her child support
payments, contrary to the terms of the marital settlement agreement and without
judicial approval. Following Wolcott, the court will likely take Dr. Chavez's disregard
for financial obligations as a lack of good faith. Furthermore, Dr. Chavez told several
individuals that she quit her practice because she "can't stand to play that much money
to my ex-husband." These comments, if proved in court, would demonstrate
Dr. Chavez's bad faith. Applying Wolcott, the court will likely deny a reduction in
child support obligations.
As a counterargument, Dr. Mary Chavez may assert, "That's all I can afford to pay
now that I'm going to school." This however has not been a concern of the courts.
This was not a concern of the Supreme Court of New Mexico in Britton. This was not
a concern of the courts in Wolcott when looking at the analogous case of Dr. Wolcott.
The concern of the court is the children. The children's actual need for support is the
essential criterion. The parent's duty to support the children persists – enforced with
the full authority of the State.
Conclusion:
The rule of law governing the modification of child support obligations is NMSA
§ 40-4-11.4, which provides that a court may modify a child support obligation upon a
showing of material and substantial changes in circumstances. In Britton, the
Supreme Court of New Mexico declared that the obligor parent cannot unilaterally
alter child support obligations. The Wolcott court emphasized that the recipient's
actual need for support is the essential criterion. The obligor parent has the burden of
proving to the trial court's satisfaction that circumstances had substantially changed.
Where the career change is not made in good faith, a reduction in one's support
obligations will not be warranted. When applying statutory and case law to
Dr. Mary Chavez, the court will likely deny a modification of child support.
RECOMMENDATIONS
