IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Alexandre Ford GARRETT, Appellant and Daniel Meyer HEINE, Appellee.
Page 813
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 814
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
courts 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 mothers 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
Page 815
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 mothers 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 mothers
arrearages against fathers 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 ...