Ralph Father and Cristi Mother Moccia were divorced in 1999. The final decree, which approved a settlement agreement, named Mother as the primary custodian of their daughter and required that Father make monthly support payments of $1000. Although that amount exceeded the support guidelines established by OCGA § 19-6-15, the trial court approved the parties’ agreed amount based upon the child’s needs and the fact that Father’s earning capacity exceeded his current income. In 2002, Father sought a downward modification of his support obligation, alleging a worsening of his financial condition. Mother answered and, by way of counterclaim, sought to have him held in contempt for failure to make support payments. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the modification request and found Father in contempt. Father applied for a discretionary appeal, which this Court granted. 1. In related enumerations of error, Father contends that, considering the evidence produced, the trial court should have granted modification.
OCGA § 19-6-19 a provides, in relevant part, that an award of child support can be modified “in accordance with the changed income and financial status of either former spouse . . ., if such a change in the income and financial status is satisfactorily proved so as to warrant the modification and revision.” The trier of fact must initially determine “whether there has been such a change in financial status . . . ‘as would support a reconsideration of the level of the supporting spouse’s obligation to provide financial support for the parties’ child.’ Cit.” Emphasis in original. Wingard v. Paris , 270 Ga. 439 511 SE2d 167 1999. Here, the divorce decree established that, as evidenced by Father’s earning capacity, rather than his current income, a level of support of $1000 per month was appropriate. Thus, to justify a reduction in that obligation, Father was required to prove a subsequent diminution in his ability to pay that amount. See Decker v. Decker , 256 Ga. 513, 514 2 350 SE2d 434 1986; McClinton v. McClinton , 217 Ga. 283, 285 1 122 SE2d 112 1961. The trial court correctly held Father to the standard of proof established by OCGA § 19-6-19 a, requiring him to show a reduction in his financial status and income. See Stiltz v. Stiltz , 236 Ga. 308, 309 223 SE2d 689 1976.
