Whеn the parties were divorced, appellee-mother was awarded custody of the onе minor child of the parties and appellant-father was ordered to pay a total of $6,400 рer year in child support. Since that time, these changes have occurred: both parties hаve remarried; appellant has fathered two more children and has undertaken custody of his child from a marriage preceding his marriage to appellee; and appellant’s gross аnnual income has increased by $7,738. Based on those changes, appellant sought a downward modification of his support obligation to the child of his marriage to appellee. The trial сourt dismissed appellant’s petition, holding, in essence, that the increase *148 in appellant’s gross income was an absolute bar to modification and that appellant’s additional support obligations were not factors which could be considered in determining whether there had been а change in his' financial status. Concluding that both those rulings are too broad, we reverse.
1. With regard to thе trial court’s holding that an increase in the petitioning parent’s income is an absolute bar to modification, we note first the general rule that “either parent may seek modification of support based on a change in either of their financial circumstances. . . .”
Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human
Resources,
2. The trial court held that appellant’s increased responsibility for the suppоrt of children other than the one involved in this case did not constitute a change in his financial status. Aрpellant and ap-pellee have focused on the issue of whether the factors listed in OCGA § 19-6-15 (с) (6) as authorizing variation from guideline amounts require that the trial court take into account obligations to support other children. We look instead to the plain language of OCGA § 19-6-19 (a):
The judgment of a court providing permanent alimony for the support of a child or children . . . shall be subject to rеvision upon petition filed by either former spouse showing a *149 change in the income and financial status of either former spouse or in the needs of the child or children.
(Emphasis supplied.) The statute requires only a showing of “a change in the incоme and financial status” of either parent.
2
“In determining a change of the financial condition оf a parent, the court should consider every relevant fact. . . . [Cit.]”
Decker v. Decker,
The proper scopе of the trial court’s consideration in this case was whether there had been, as alleged by aрpellant, such a change in the financial status of each parent as would support a reconsideration of the level of appellant’s obligation to provide financial support for the parties’ child. Focusing solely on the fact that appellant’s gross income has inсreased since the initial child support award was error.
Judgment reversed.
Notes
In citing to and quoting from
Gibson v. Giles,
This court has made clear that the petitioner need not show a change in both income and financial status, but merely a change in either.
[T]he legislature did not intend tо require a showing of a change in both “income and financial status,” but rather a change in the [pаrents’] income “or” financial status. Clearly, what the legislature did intend was that the original judgment could be revised upon a change in the [obligor-parent]’s ability to pay, and there might be a change in [that] ability to pay by reason of a change in . . . financial status without any actual change in . . . income.
Perry v. Perry,