## Facts

- Dr. John M. Langley and Patricia M. Langley divorced and had five minor children.
- A 1994 consent judgment required John to pay (1) $4,500 per month in alimony for 48 months (scheduled to end shortly after the youngest child reached school age) and (2) $5,500 per month in child support.
- In a later proceeding, the district court reduced child support to $5,000 per month; on appeal, the reduction was affirmed and made retroactive to the date of judicial demand.
- As the 48-month alimony term neared expiration, Patricia filed to modify child support, alleging a material change in circumstances based on (1) the impending end of alimony and (2) increasing expenses as the children grew older. She sought an increase to approximately $12,210 per month.
- John filed a rule seeking to reduce child support. He argued his income had not increased and asserted Patricia could work now that the youngest child was or would soon be school-aged.
- Patricia had a law degree (but was not admitted to practice) and was a registered nurse. She was not employed outside the home and stated she planned to homeschool, so she could not work.
- Patricia contended John was voluntarily underemployed because he worked more during the marriage.
- John worked as an emergency-room physician. He typically worked 14 twelve-hour shifts per month, plus some time for paperwork, which the trial court treated as roughly a 42-hour workweek.
- John’s monthly income at the time of the hearing was approximately $20,000 to $25,000. He presented evidence that emergency-room work was physically and mentally demanding and that the hospital discouraged physicians from working more than about 13 shifts per month.
- Patricia also argued that the combined $9,500 monthly payment (alimony plus child support) effectively functioned as child support because it was used for household and child-related expenses.
- The trial court found Patricia could obtain some employment based on her education and training, found that termination of alimony and increased needs of the children constituted a change in circumstances, denied John’s request to reduce support, and increased child support from $5,000 to $7,500 per month.
- Both parties appealed: Patricia argued the increase was too small; John argued there should have been no increase (and that a reduction was warranted).

## Issues

1. Whether the end of time-limited alimony and increased expenses for the children constituted a material change in circumstances allowing an increase in child support, even if the obligor’s income had not increased.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Patricia capable of some employment and in how that affected the child-support determination.
3. Whether John was voluntarily underemployed because he did not work more emergency-room shifts.
4. Whether the $4,500 monthly payment labeled alimony should be treated as child support when assessing change in circumstances and setting the new support amount.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting child support at $7,500 per month in a case where the parents’ combined income exceeded the guideline schedule.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court judgment increasing child support to $7,500 per month.
- The court agreed that the termination of the 48-month alimony obligation, together with the children’s increasing expenses, supported a finding of a material change in circumstances permitting modification.
- The court rejected John’s argument that child support could not be increased absent an increase in his income, recognizing that changes affecting the recipient parent’s resources and the children’s needs may justify modification.
- The court found no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Patricia could obtain some employment given her education and credentials, while leaving the amount of imputed earning capacity within the trial court’s fact-finding role.
- The court rejected Patricia’s claim that John was voluntarily underemployed, crediting evidence about the demanding nature of emergency-room work and the hospital’s discouragement of additional shifts beyond a full-time schedule.
- The court treated the $4,500 payment as alimony as designated in the consent judgment; the fact that the funds were spent on household expenses did not convert it into child support.
- Given the parties’ high combined income and the record considered by the trial court, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the $7,500 monthly award.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking modification of a child-support order must prove a material change in circumstances since the prior order; changes may include reduced resources available to the custodial parent (such as termination of time-limited alimony) and increased needs of the children.
- In high-income cases where combined income exceeds the guideline schedule, the court sets support under the applicable statute granting discretion above the guideline maximum, while using the children’s needs and the parents’ financial circumstances as guideposts.
- A parent’s ability to earn may be considered when setting or modifying support; whether and how much income to attribute to a parent who is not working is a fact-intensive determination.
- Claims of voluntary underemployment require proof that a parent is intentionally earning less than he or she could; evidence about job demands, work conditions, and employer limits may support a finding that the parent is not underemployed.
- Labels in a consent judgment matter: a payment structured and ordered as time-limited alimony is generally treated as spousal support, not reclassified as child support simply because it contributes to household spending.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed an increase in child support to $7,500 per month, holding that the scheduled termination of Patricia’s alimony and the rising costs of raising five children supported a material change in circumstances, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s treatment of the parties’ employment arguments, the characterization of alimony, or the amount set in this high-income case.


Langley v. Langley, 747 So. 2d 183 (1999)