Riley, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Respondent, Tracy K. Barber (Father), appeals the trial court’s Order, granting Appellee-Petitioner’s, Amy Henry (Mother), verified petition to modify foreign child support order.
We affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand with instructions.
….
Here, Father’s contention is not the modification of child support per se, but rather the trial court’s calculation. More specifically, Father’s challenge is focused on the court’s imputation of minimum wage as Mother’s income, while Mother has a medical degree and has been employed as a physician before. Father assures us that he “is not asking that Mother make employment decisions based upon obtaining the highest pay[;]” rather “he is just asking that the [c]ourt fairly allocate support where the Mother has admittedly chosen not to work based upon her husband’s substantial income.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 11).
….
Based on the particular facts and circumstances before us, the trial court properly concluded that “Mother’s current employment situation is not a choice made to avoid any child support obligation[.]” (Appellant’s App. p. 5). A highly educated parent who chooses to leave her employment to help her three children with special developmental needs is not unemployed without just cause. Although Dr. Henry is in an enviable affluent position to give Mother and the children a more comfortable life, this is not Mother’s main reason for not working. Rather, Mother’s life revolves around her three minor sons and their therapy, and is focused on getting them the best care she can give them so they may each reach their full potential. It is not our function to “force parents to work to their full economic potential or make their career decisions based strictly upon the size of potential paychecks.” Buehler, 576 N.E.2d at 1356. Although the trial court could have imputed no income to Mother, here, the trial court allotted Mother the minimum income in its calculation of child support. “While the Guidelines clearly indicate that a parent’s avoidance of child support is grounds for imputing potential income, it is not a necessary prerequisite.” In re Paternity of Pickett, 44 N.E.3d 756, 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Instead, “it is within the trial court’s discretion to impute potential income even under circumstances where avoiding child support is not the reason for a parent’s unemployment.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its calculation of the weekly child support.
….
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed minimum wage to Mother after concluding that she was not voluntarily unemployed. We reverse the trial court with respect to the award of civil attorney fees and remand with instructions to determine which portion of these fees can be attributed to the protective order. We affirm the trial court with respect to all other reimbursement expenses.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with further instructions.
Kirsch, J. and Pyle, J. concur