Background
Annika and Austin Childers divorced in 2022, with Austin ordered to pay $2,308 monthly child support based on a net monthly income of approximately $14,280. In August 2024, Austin moved to modify child support. After filing, he changed employment from Petroleum Experience, Inc. to R&A Services, Inc., resulting in a significant income reduction. At an April 2025 evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated to provide income information to the North Dakota Child Support Enforcement Agency (the State) for calculation after the hearing.
Initially, the district court denied child support modification, then later, on reconsideration, adopted Austin’s proposed $923 monthly obligation based on his new employment income, declining to consider Annika’s supplemental evidence regarding Austin’s potential self-employment or ownership in R&A. Annika successfully moved for reconsideration, leading the court to order Austin to provide five years of tax returns for himself and R&A Services. Based on this, the State provided two calculations: one using Austin’s new paystubs ($923/month) and one imputing income from his previous employment ($2,391/month).
Annika submitted sworn statements alleging Austin changed jobs to reduce child support, citing his previous statements and R&A’s business filings listing his home address. Austin countered with an affidavit stating he changed jobs for health, family life, and stability reasons. The district court ultimately adopted the imputed income calculation of $2,391 per month, effective October 15, 2025, finding Austin voluntarily changed employment resulting in a substantial income reduction. Austin appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. First, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision to consider supplemental evidence regarding Austin Childers’ income after the evidentiary hearing. It distinguished this case from prior precedents, noting the parties had specifically stipulated at the hearing to provide such documentation later, making the subsequent submissions fall within the intended scope of their agreement.
Second, the Court reversed the district court’s income imputation decision and remanded for further findings. While the district court found Austin voluntarily changed employment resulting in reduced income and cited N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(7) (voluntary change in employment for the purpose of reducing child support), it failed to make a specific finding on the crucial element of *purpose*—i.e., whether Austin’s employment change was, in fact, made to reduce his child support obligation. Given the conflicting evidence presented by both parties, the Supreme Court found the lower court’s findings insufficient for meaningful review.
Third, the Court also reversed and remanded the district court’s decision regarding the effective date of the modified child support obligation. The district court ordered the modification to take effect on October 15, 2025, but provided no explanation for this specific date, departing from the general rule that modifications should be effective from the date of the motion to modify unless a good reason is provided. The Supreme Court declined to instruct the district court to adopt a specific calculation or effective date but required an explanation for whatever date is chosen on remand.
Key Takeaways
- District courts retain discretion to consider supplemental evidence related to child support calculations if the parties have stipulated to provide such information post-hearing, distinguishing this from situations where a record is improperly reopened.
- When imputing income under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(7) due to a voluntary change in employment, a district court *must* make a specific finding on whether the change was *for the purpose of reducing the obligor’s child support obligation*. General findings of voluntary reduction in income are insufficient when evidence is disputed.
- The “rule of reason” regarding voluntary employment changes from *Olson v. Olson* has been superseded by N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(7), which makes income imputation generally a matter of the court’s discretion, with the obligor bearing the burden to prove the change was *not* for reducing child support.
- District courts must provide a clear explanation for the chosen effective date of a modified child support obligation, especially when it deviates from the date the motion to modify was filed.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a critical reminder to family law practitioners in North Dakota regarding the procedural and substantive requirements for child support modifications involving voluntary changes in employment. For attorneys representing obligors, it underscores the importance of clearly articulating and proving the non-support-reduction purpose of an employment change. For attorneys representing obligees, it clarifies the avenue for challenging such changes with supplemental evidence when a stipulation is in place.
The decision also emphasizes the North Dakota Supreme Court’s insistence on clear and specific factual findings from district courts, particularly when exercising discretion in complex areas like income imputation and setting effective dates for modifications. Without such clarity, appellate review is hampered, leading to reversals and remands that prolong litigation and uncertainty for families.