Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2171 at the time of the divorce, are now 14 and 12 and that $30 per week was simply ins~fficient to provide for their support. Mr. Petersen, in turn, admitted:that he could aEford a$20 per week increase and testified that his weekly salary had risen fro~ approximately $23S in 1969 to $325 in 1979. Next, Mrs. Cowan's attorney introduced into evidence, without objection, a chart . prepared by the ~ederal Bureau of Labor Statistics which indicated that the purchasing power of the dollar had decreased substantially since 1969. Considering Mr. Petersen's salary increase, the court reasoned "[t)hat inflation has affected Respondent's salary to the extent that his current salary is approximately the same as the former salary as far as buying power is concerned." Therefore, the court denied~the request for an increase in child support, finding that "there has been no•change in circumstance upon which a modi- fication of child support could be based." We respectfully dis= agree. - . ~ The court's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to con- sider the adverse impact of inflation on both parties. Though Mr. Petersen's purchasing power -- despite salary increases -- remains at the 19b9 level, Mrs. Cowan's purchasing power has decreased substantially below the 1969 level. It is erroneous to consider orie wi~hout the other; seen together, they establish a substantial change in one of the parties' ~ircumstances. Moreover, in a pro- ceeding for modification of child support, a court should consider . , evidence as to the increased needs o€ the children as well as the father's incr~ased ability to pay. Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In the case at bar, ther~ is substanti~al competent evidence of (1) the adverse impact of inflation; (2) incr~ased needs of the children caused by their reaching adolescence; and (3) Mr. Petersen's increased income. Viewed collectively, these factors justify a finding of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an increase in child support. Addinqton v. Addinqton, 48 I11.App.3d 859, 363 N.E.2d 151 (1977). ~ ~ . . ` ~ . -2- . . ~ go`~348 PA~E2169 , ~ ~ ~ .~"y.~'? ,a+-^, .. _ r,. ~ _ .. 5 ... _ '.t , r... ~ . 9~~rv. .. .._ ~