The Iowa Supreme Court's opinion in the case of In re Marriage of McKenzie addresses the issue of determining child support when the payor's reduction is voluntary but not for the purpose of avoiding or reducing child support. In this case, the non-custodial parent relocated from Iowa to another state and was unable to find employment at a level comparable to that paid by his Iowa employer of 22 years. Finding that the relocating parent "was not free to plan his future without regard to his obligation to his former wife and chid," the court concluded that "substantial injustice" would result if the payor's actual earnings were used and thus established support based upon his higher earning capacity as evidenced by his prior income. As the court summarized, the non-custodial parent's "desire for self-fulfillment is outweighed by the pre-existing duty he had to his former spouse to provide adequate support for his minor child." The court also noted that if actual incomes were used instead of earning capacity, "we would be requiring [the custodial parent] to increase her contribution for the support of the child. [The custodial parent] should not be forced to make up [the non-custodial parent's] reduced child support so that [he] can start a new life with his new wife."
For another case addressing the "self-inflicted/voluntary" income reduction issue, see In re Marriage of Duggan, 659 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Iowa 2003).
