Childers v. Childers, et al., 20250457

Background

Austin Childers and Annika Childers divorced in 2022, with Annika awarded primary residential responsibility and Austin ordered to pay $2,308 monthly child support based on his then-income. 1
After Austin moved to modify custody, parenting plan, and support, he changed jobs from Petroleum Experience, Inc. to R&A Services, Inc., reducing his income. 2
At the modification hearing, the parties stipulated to submit later income information to the State so it could calculate child support. 3
The district court initially relied only on the hearing evidence and later granted reconsideration, ordering Austin to provide tax and wage records for prior years after Annika alleged possible self-employment or concealed ownership. 4
The State submitted two worksheets: one based on Austin's R&A paystubs showing $923 monthly support, and one imputing income from prior earnings showing $2,391 monthly support. 5
The district court adopted the imputed-income worksheet and set the modified obligation effective October 15, 2025, and Austin appealed. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Could the court consider post-hearing supplemental income filings? 7	Annika said the parties stipulated to later income submissions.	Austin said post-hearing supplementation was improper.	The court properly considered the supplemental filings. 8
Did the court properly impute income after Austin changed jobs? 9	Annika argued Austin voluntarily reduced income and support should be imputed.	Austin argued no finding showed he changed jobs to reduce support.	Remanded for findings on whether the change was for that purpose. 10
Was the child support effective date properly explained? 11	Annika supported the court's later effective date.	Austin sought an August 20, 2024 effective date.	Remanded for an explanation of the effective date. 12

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Richardson, 981 N.W.2d 907 (N.D. 2022) (North Dakota does not formally recognize motions to reconsider; such requests may be treated as Rule 59(j) or 60(b) motions 13)
Larson v. Larson, 582 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1998) (new evidence should be presented by reopening the record, not by post-hearing filings 14)
Adams v. Adams, 883 N.W.2d 864 (N.D. 2016) (additional evidence after judgment requires proper procedure and cannot contradict an affirmed judgment 15)
Updike v. Updike, 974 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 2022) (mixed standard governs child support determinations and clearly erroneous review applies to factual findings 16)
Pomarleau v. Pomarleau, 969 N.W.2d 430 (N.D. 2022) (income may be imputed when an obligor voluntarily changes employment to reduce support 17)
Olson v. Olson, 520 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 1994) (reasonable employment changes may preclude imputation under the older rule of reason 18)
Logan v. Bush, 621 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2000) (later administrative rules govern imputation and give the court discretion even when employment changes are reasonable 19)
Schwalk v. Schwalk, 841 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 2014) (explicit findings on every factor are not always required when the record supports voluntary employment change 20)
Toppenberg v. Toppenberg, 23 N.W.3d 751 (N.D. 2025) (appellate courts may infer the purpose for an employment change from the district court's findings if discernible 21)
Bickel v. Bickel, 949 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2020) (the effective date of modified child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion 22)
Geinert v. Geinert, 649 N.W.2d 237 (N.D. 2002) (modified support generally should take effect on the motion date absent good reason otherwise 23)
Anderson v. Foss, 10 N.W.3d 570 (N.D. 2024) (remand may be required when the court fails to explain a later effective date 24)