Clark Lissner, age 61, had been a schoolteacher for thirty-nine years. Lissner had had enough of the "challenging student population, who struggled with poverty, drugs, domestic violence and other problems that complicated his task as an educator." So he retired.

Retirement reduced Lissner's income by more than $25,000 per year. Lissner wanted to lower his child support obligation. Lissner was paying his ex-wife $340 per week as child support for two children, one in high school, the other in college. But Lissner's ex-wife was only 45. She had recently been forced to change to a different job. Her salary had decreased.

The New Jersey Superior Court decided the case. To make its decision, the Court considered these factors:

1. the benefits to the retiring parent, based on his or her age, health, timing, finances, assets, reasons for retiring, and whether the parent can control the disbursement of retirement payments to enable him or her to maintain support for the child despite retirement;
2. the impact on the child of reduced support, based on his or her needs, age, health, assets, and standard of living to which he or she has grown accustomed, and any proffered advantages to the child from the parent’s retirement; and
3. the fairness of the decision, based on the obligor’s motivation, good faith, and voluntariness of the retirement.

The Court's decision? "Lissner has failed to demonstrate that the advantages to him of retiring and reducing his income substantially outweigh the harm to his children from reduced child support. The motion to modify is denied."

Tags: child support, retirement