AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over the modification of child support and the decision to impute income to the Respondent, who relocated from New Mexico to Europe, resulting in a significant salary reduction. The Respondent's move was scrutinized under the premise of bad faith, specifically regarding whether it was an attempt to reduce his child support obligations. The Respondent was employed in his area of expertise in Italy, and there was no evidence presented that he was underemployed intentionally to lower his child support payments.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: The arguments presented by the Petitioner-Appellee are not explicitly detailed in the provided text.
• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the ruling that he acted in bad faith by moving to Europe with the purpose of reducing his child support obligations. He emphasized that he was employed in his area of expertise in Italy and contended that the decision to impute income to him due to his relocation misconstrued case law and violated his right to travel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent acted in bad faith by relocating to Europe for the purpose of reducing his child support obligations.
• Whether the decision to impute income to the Respondent due to his relocation from New Mexico to Europe, rather than vice versa, misconstrues case law and violates his right to travel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order affirming the child support hearing officer’s decision to modify child support and impute income to the Respondent.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J., concurring): The Court found that the Respondent's relocation and acceptance of a significantly lower salary in Europe were not reasonable under the circumstances, especially considering the lack of evidence that he was laid off from his specialized field in New Mexico. The Court disagreed with the Respondent's characterization of the evidence and his narrow view of the standards for imputing income. It was determined that the Respondent's actions were not done with a mind toward his parental obligation to support his child and were not reasonable for satisfying his parental support obligations. The Court also rejected the Respondent's argument that the hearing officer’s conclusions misconstrued case law or violated his right to travel, as well as his waiver argument regarding the Petitioner's inaction in seeking to modify child support for seven years after his relocation. Lastly, the Court addressed the Respondent's complaint about the modification of child support based on changed circumstances, clarifying that the change was justified due to the custody arrangement without consideration of any perceived benefit from the income of the Petitioner’s new spouse.