Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father's petition to modify child support after he lost higher-paying employment and obtained lower-paying work. The Court held that the Family Court improperly focused solely on the passage of time and failed to weigh the father's sustained, adequate job search and other circumstances surrounding his loss of employment under the Melson Formula. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded.
Holdings
- The passage of two and a half years permits an obligor to file a modification petition, but does not eliminate the attribution-of-income requirement. An obligor who lost employment through his own fault must still demonstrate that a sufficient period of time elapsed during which the obligor actively sought employment commensurate with current skills, education, and training, and the Family Court must consider whether other circumstances surrounding the loss of employment justify reducing attributed income.
- The Family Court committed reversible error by failing to properly weigh the adequacy of Father's active and sustained job search and by failing to address other factors surrounding his employment loss in deciding whether to reduce attributed income. The record established that Father met his burden and that the reduction calculated by the commissioner should have been granted.
- The Supreme Court reviews the Family Court's application of the Melson Formula for abuse of discretion and will not disturb factual findings unless clearly wrong.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court properly applied the Melson Formula's sufficient-period-of-time requirement when deciding whether to reduce attributed income after an obligor lost employment through his own fault.
- Whether the Family Court abused its discretion by failing to weigh Father's active and sustained search for comparable employment and other circumstances affecting his earning prospects.
- What standard of review governs the Family Court's application of the Melson Formula.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- Div. of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Harper v. Barrows, 570 A.2d 1180, 1182, 1185 (Del. 1990)(followed)
- Smith v. Francisco, 737 A.2d 1000, 1001-03 (Del. 1999)(followed)
- Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197, 1201-02, 1202-09, 1210-12, 1212-18 (Del. 1989)(followed)
- Turner v. Turner, 586 A.2d 1182, 1184-85 (Del. 1991)(followed)
- Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983)(followed)
- R.T. v. R.T., 494 A.2d 150, 151, 153 (Del. 1985)(followed)
- In re Joslin, 1999 WL 1457216, at *2 (Del. Fam. Ct.)(followed)
- Foster v. Foster, 537 S.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)(persuasive)
- In re Marriage of Foley, 501 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Iowa 1993)(persuasive)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…