## Facts

- A 2012 divorce decree awarded the father primary physical custody of the parties’ only child and ordered the mother to pay $1,507 per month in child support.
- At the time of the original order, the mother lived in Anchorage and earned about $120,000 annually at a pipeline services company.
- In 2013, the mother quit her job, moved to the remote village of Stebbins, and adopted a subsistence lifestyle tied to cultural and spiritual goals.
- The mother moved to modify child support, asserting she was unemployed, was a stay-at-home parent, and had only an annual state dividend as income; she sought a reduction to the $50 minimum under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(c)(3).
- The father opposed, arguing the mother was voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed and that income should be imputed based on earning capacity.
- The superior court denied modification, finding the mother’s unemployment unreasonable and insufficient to justify reducing support.
- On appeal, the mother argued the superior court gave inadequate weight to her cultural/spiritual reasons and that enforcement of the support obligation violated free exercise of religion.

## Issues

1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 by treating the mother’s job resignation and subsistence relocation as voluntary and unreasonable unemployment for child-support purposes.
2. Whether enforcing the existing child-support obligation violated the mother’s free-exercise rights, and whether any error occurred when the claim was not squarely raised in the trial court.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to modify child support.
- The court held the superior court adequately considered relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in finding the mother voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed, permitting imputation of income.
- The court reviewed the free-exercise argument for plain error because it was raised for the first time on appeal and found no plain error in the trial court’s failure to anticipate and address it.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3, a court may impute income to an obligor who is voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed or underemployed when setting or modifying child support.
- In assessing reasonableness, courts may consider the obligor’s stated motivations, but the child’s need for support and the obligor’s earning capacity remain central considerations.
- A parent’s voluntary lifestyle choice, even if connected to cultural or spiritual commitments, does not automatically make unemployment reasonable for child-support modification.
- Constitutional claims generally must be preserved in the trial court; arguments first raised on appeal are reviewed only for plain error, and a trial court is not required to raise unasserted constitutional theories sua sponte.

## Conclusion

The court upheld imputation-based support where a high-earning obligor voluntarily left employment for subsistence living, and it rejected a belated free-exercise challenge under plain-error review, leaving the existing child-support order in place.


Sharpe v. Sharpe, 366 P.3d 66 (Alaska 2016)