No. 5-361 / 04-1585Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed July 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, David R. Danilson, Judge.
Respondent appeals from the district court’s order following a review of an action filed by the Child Support Recovery Unit.AFFIRMED.
Evelyn Ocheltree of Iowa Legal Aid, Mason City, for appellant.
David R. Johnson of Brinton, Bordwell Johnson, Clarion, for appellee Rodney Slagle.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Diane Stahle, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Mark Haverkamp, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee-State.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
HECHT, J.
Heather Slagle appeals from the district court’s order following an Iowa Code chapter 252H(2003) review of her child support obligation by the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU). She contends the district court erred in concluding she failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of her child support obligation. We review her claim de novo. State ex. rel. Heidick v. Balch, 533 N.W.2d 209, 211
(Iowa 1995).
An order dissolving the marriage of Heather and Rodney Slagle was entered in March 2001. Rodney was granted physical care of the parties’ two minor children and Heather was ordered to pay child support. At the time, Heather was unemployed. She had quit her previous job, at which she earned $7.00 per hour. The district court found Heather was capable of earning $7.00 per hour and imputed to her income of $974 per month. Accordingly, Heather was ordered to pay $277 per month in child support.
Since the dissolution, Heather has not maintained permanent employment. She was fired from a telemarketing position after two months due to absenteeism. Heather then worked temporary positions from September 2001 through February 2002. She reported an income of $6272 in 2001 and $455 in 2002. She has not worked since February 2002.
In June 2003, Heather asked the CSRU to review her support obligation pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 252H. Based on the income information provided by Rodney and Heather, the CSRU calculated Heather’s child support obligation at $75 per month, the minimum under the child support guidelines. Rodney contested Heather’s income and requested a court hearing pursuant to section 252H.8(1). In its September 2004 order, the district court concluded Heather failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of her child support obligation.
Child support may be modified upon proof of a substantial change in circumstances. In re Marriage of Salmon, 519 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The burden to show a substantial change of circumstances rests upon the applicant. In re Marriage of Feustel, 467 N.W.2d 261, 265 (Iowa 1991). Heather contends health problems preclude her from working and constitute a change in circumstances warranting modification. However, we conclude Heather has failed to prove her claim. As the district court noted, Heather “has presented no convincing medical evidence to suggest that her physical ailments have substantially changed her earning capacity since the Decree was entered.” Because Heather has failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the modification action.
AFFIRMED.