## Facts

- Lisa L. Little (mother) and Billy L. Little, Jr. (father) divorced in November 1995 and had two young children.
- At dissolution, the father was a U.S. Air Force lieutenant earning about $48,000 annually plus benefits and held an MBA; the mother was a student and primary caretaker.
- The dissolution decree ordered the father to pay $1,186 per month in child support.
- In August 1996, the father resigned his Air Force commission and enrolled as a full-time law student rather than seek other employment.
- The father petitioned to reduce child support to $239 per month based on his decreased income while in school; the mother opposed the request, asserting the children’s established needs would not be met.
- The trial court found the father voluntarily left employment to further personal ambition without considering the children’s needs; it denied a downward modification based on his schooling but reduced support to $972 per month due solely to the mother’s increased income.
- The court of appeals reversed, applying a “good faith” approach and concluding the trial court abused its discretion in treating the father’s choice as unreasonable.

## Issues

1. What standard applies when a noncustodial parent voluntarily leaves employment to attend school and seeks a downward child support modification under Arizona’s “substantial and continuing change of circumstances” requirement.
2. Whether a parent’s subjective good faith in pursuing education, standing alone, can justify reducing child support.
3. Whether the court may consider earning capacity rather than actual income when the obligor voluntarily reduces earnings.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the trial court’s order.
- The court rejected a rule that would rely solely on a “good faith” test for voluntary income reductions.
- The court held trial courts must balance multiple factors, with primary attention to the children’s best interests and established needs, in deciding whether the statutory “substantial and continuing” change standard is met.
- Applying that approach, the court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reduce support based on the father’s voluntary decision to attend law school full time.

## Legal Principles

- Child support may be modified only upon a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing under A.R.S. §§ 25-327(A) and 25-503(F).
- When an obligor voluntarily reduces income, voluntariness is a significant consideration but does not control; the court must evaluate the total circumstances.
- A court may not base modification solely on the obligor’s subjective good faith; it must consider factors including:
  - the reasons for the income reduction and its foreseeability,
  - the duration of the change,
  - the children’s best interests, established needs, and standard of living,
  - the obligor’s ability to pay, including potential reliance on earning capacity rather than self-limited actual income.
- Speculative future earning gains from education do not justify shifting immediate financial harm to the children.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that a noncustodial parent’s voluntary decision to leave employment for full-time schooling does not, by itself, establish a substantial and continuing change warranting lower child support; courts must apply a child-centered, multi-factor balancing analysis and may attribute earning capacity when the obligor elects reduced income.


In re Marriage of Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 975 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1999)