In re the Marriage of Alexandre Ford Garrett, Appellant, and Daniel Meyer Heine, Appellee.
Boulder County District Court No. 08DR179 Honorable Andrew R.
Macdonald, Judge
Alexandre Ford Garrett, Pro Se
Daniel
Meyer Heine, Pro Se
OPINION
TAUBMAN JUDGE
¶
1 In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding involving
the children of Alexandre Ford Garrett (mother) and Daniel
Meyer Heine (father), mother appeals the district court's
order modifying child support and awarding retroactive child
support. We affirm the portion of the order retroactively
establishing a child support order, reverse the portion of
the order determining mother's income, and remand the
case for further proceedings. In so doing, we interpret a
2013 amendment to the child support statute that resolved
conflicting decisions from divisions of our court concerning
parents' responsibilities to pay child support when a
voluntary change in parenting time occurs.
I.
Relevant Facts
¶
2 Mother and father, the parents of two children, were
divorced in 2008.
¶
3 In 2014, both parents moved to modify parenting time. In
February 2015, the district court entered a week on/week off
parenting time schedule and modified child support
accordingly. The parents then agreed in June 2015 to modify
the week on/week off parenting time schedule such that father
would be the primary residential parent and mother would have
parenting time every other weekend and one evening per week.
Based on the revised parenting time schedule, father began
paying mother a reduced amount of child support. Father then
moved to modify child support in July 2016.
¶
4 The parties again agreed to change parenting time in
February 2017. Mother became the primary residential parent
of one child while father remained the primary residential
parent of the other child.
¶
5 After a March 2017 hearing, the district court made the
following findings with respect to the parties' incomes
for child support purposes:
• father was capable of earning $20, 000 per month;
• mother was doing contract work and earning $2000 to
$4000 per month;
• mother had an extensive background in public
relations, marketing, and communications and had historically
earned at least $6000 per month until she lost her job in
2016;
• mother believed that the job market was saturated and
that going forward she would not be able to earn the
equivalent of her prior salary; and
• the court "was not provided with credible
evidence" that mother was incapable of reaching her
income potential if employed full time in her field.
¶
6 Based on these findings, the court calculated child support
using $6000 per month as mother's income. The court
further determined that because of the substantial changes in
parenting time beginning in June 2015, mother should have
been paying child support to father and therefore owed him
$21, 389 in arrearages. Offsetting mother's arrearages
against father's current child support obligation, the
court ordered father to pay mother $225.58 per month for
twenty-four months and then $1116.79 per month thereafter.
II.
Income Imputation
¶
7 Mother contends that the district court erred when it
imputed $6000 per month in income to her without finding she
...