BARNES, Judge.
Joshua March appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to modify his weekly child support obligation. We reverse and remand.
. . . .
Regardless of any imputation of at least minimum wage earnings, the problem with the trial court’s calculation of March’s support is that it is not based on the actual income and assets available to the parent-as Lambert instructs support calculations should be. See Lambert, 861 N.E.2d at 1177. There was no evidence presented that March had actual income or assets even close to $210 a week. In fact, March testified that he was making $6 per month working in the kitchen and there were no other employment opportunities available at his penal facility. March speculated that other facilities may have better employment options, but the record does not contain evidence that March was moving to those facilities. No facts in the record indicate that March had any additional available assets. The trial court was incorrect in denying March’s petition for modification. March presented evidence that he was earning approximately $6 per month, yet the trial court continued a $67 per week support order. The evidence before the court indicated that the previous child support obligation of $15 per week was more appropriate, especially considering the Lambert decision. March is not attempting to avoid his child support obligations and candidly admitted his willingness to pay a lesser amount.
Our supreme court noted in Lambert that “to the extent that an order fails to take into account the real financial capacity of a jailed parent, the system fails the child by making it statistically more likely that the child will be deprived of adequate support over the long term.” Lambert, 861 N.E.2d at 1180. In addition, $67 per week is not within the recommended range of the Guidelines for those with an income of less than $100 per week, which “provide for case-by-case determination . . . normally within the range of $25-$50 weekly.” Child Supp. G. 2. March has established prima facie error here and we conclude that the denial of his motion to modify was an abuse of discretion. We remand this case to the trial court. We recommend further fact finding proceedings regarding March’s current actual earnings and assets with modification of his child support obligation in line with those findings. Any modification would only be retroactive to the date March’s petition was filed. See Schacht v. Schacht, 892 N.E.2d 1271, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[A] trial court has the discretionary power to make a modification for child support related back to the date the petition to modify is filed, or any date thereafter.”).
The trial court abused its discretion in denying March’s petition for child support modification. We reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
BAILEY, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.