In Re the Marriage of Shanee Ray Knust and Kevin Lester Knust Upon the Petition of Shanee Ray Knust, and Concerning Kevin Lester Knust ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1664
Filed August 2, 2017
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHANEE RAY KNUST
AND KEVIN LESTER KNUST
Upon the Petition of
SHANEE RAY KNUST,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
KEVIN LESTER KNUST,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, Dustria A. Relph,
Judge.
The mother appeals from the district court’s order temporarily reducing the
monthly child support owed by the father. AFFIRMED.
Alan M. Wilson of Miles Law Firm, Corydon, for appellant.
Jenna K. Lain of The Law Office of Jenna K. Lain, P.L.L.C., Corydon, for
appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Shanee Knust appeals from the district court’s order temporarily reducing
the amount of monthly child support owed by the father, Kevin Knust. Shanee
maintains the district court was wrong to decrease Kevin’s child support
obligation after he was transferred to a lower paying job as a result of his
conviction for operating while intoxicated. Kevin’s annual salary decreased from
approximately $93,000 to $51,688. Shanee claims the court should not have
modified his obligation based on his lower salary because his inability to pay the
higher amount is self-inflicted and the result of his voluntary conduct of driving
while drunk. See In re Marriage of McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d 528, 533 (Iowa 2006)
(“One of the factors we consider in determining if we will use a parent’s earning
capacity, rather than a parent’s actual earnings, in order to meet the needs of the
children and do justice between the parties is whether the parent’s inability to
earn a greater income is self-inflicted or voluntary.”). Our scope of review of a
child support modification action is de novo. In re Marriage of Walters, 575
N.W.2d 739, 740 (Iowa 1998).
A parent is not free to make choices without regard to his or her obligation
to their children. See McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d at 534. However, modification is
not denied in all cases when the noncustodial parent’s income decreases. See,
e.g., Walters, 575 N.W.2d at 741 (finding a noncustodial parent’s reduction in
income and earning capacity that was the result of his voluntarily criminal activity
was not done with an improper intent to deprive his children of support); In re
Marriage of Foley, 501 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Iowa 1993) (finding that an obligor’s
reduction in income due to termination of employment for insubordination was
3
not voluntary or self-inflicted); Boquette v. Boquette, 247 N.W. 255, 256 (Iowa
1933) (determining an obligor’s demotion with resulting lower salary justified
reduction of support obligation); Nicolls v. Nicolls, 235 N.W. 288, 289 (Iowa 1931)
(finding the discharge from employment and inability to obtain a job with
comparable pay justified reduction of support obligation); In re Marriage of Blum,
526 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Iowa Ct. App.1994) (finding where the noncustodial parent
lost his job in Harlan, Iowa, and refused to move to Denison to take a higher
paying job as he wanted to stay in Harlan where his children lived was not
considered a self-inflicted or a voluntary reduction in salary); In re Marriage of
Drury, 475 N.W.2d 668, 672 (Iowa Ct. App.1991) (finding an honorable discharge
from military and concomitant loss of military pay for failure to comply with weight
limits was not voluntary or self-inflicted); In re Marriage of Fidone, 462 N.W.2d
710, 712 (Iowa Ct. App.1990) (holding a noncustodial parent’s refusal to accept
relocation as an alternative to discharge did not constitute a self-inflicted
reduction in salary for purposes of determining whether child support provisions
of divorce decree should be modified; where relocation would involve move of
1200 miles, there was a possibility of further layoffs at new location, and he
wanted to remain close to his family).
Even though Kevin’s current financial status is a result of his voluntary
criminal action, “some consideration of his earning capacity and ability to pay is
necessary.” Walters, 575 N.W.2d at 743. Kevin’s “reduction in income and
earning capacity is the result of his criminal activity which, although voluntary,
4
was not done with an improper intent to deprive his children of support.” 1 Id.While the reduction of support “will impact the parties’ children, we must base our
decision on reality rather than an unattainable utopia.” Id.Kevin’s decision to drive while intoxicated “does not qualify as a self-
inflicted or voluntary reduction of income that would justify using his former salary
in setting child support payments.” Foley, 501 N.W.2d at 500. We believe this
situation is similar to those cited above, where our court and the supreme court
has refused to continue child support at a level that has become unrealistic as a
result of a parent’s actions. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s
temporary modification of Kevin’s child support obligation.
AFFIRMED.
1
In its ruling, the district court stated, “Both [parties] also seem to acknowledge that
[Kevin] did not have an improper intent to deprive his children.” In Shanee’s appellate
brief, she claims Kevin “clearly acted in reckless disregard for his children’s well-being”;
she does not maintain Kevin had an improper motive for his action.