If you click on the link you will find a link to the court decision. That tells much more of the story than this article. The mother did make major financial sacrifices to be home with her children. Her income went from 250K to 32K. The weeks that she doesnt have the kids she is still active in their lives in a way that the father is not when she has custody. I dont think that speaks ill of the father, but the court recognized that it was in the children's best interest to have the mother continue her greater involvement.
She is still looking for part time work. I dont know Wisconsin. Maybe this is a rural area and part time work hard to find? It is all spelled out in the court document.
The children were 5, 7 and 9 when this started. I dont have any criticism of her for feeling the best use of her time was being a full time mother to them. I look at this from the standpoint of the kids. What little girl wants to know her father went to court to force her mother to be less available to her (he argued the nanny was good enough).
The record reveals that, prior to the time Dr. Chen quit, Dr. Chen's and Dr. Warner's involvement with the children was fairly typical of dual full-time working parents with high incomes. Both parents attended school and pre-school functions when they could, but not regularly. They hired a nanny to assist with the children. For the most part, one or both parents were available at dinnertime, after dinner, and on weekends. Dr. Warner, who still works full-time, attends parent-teacher conferences, attends some of the children's school activities, and spends as much as three hours a night assisting with homework during the weeks the children are with him. Dr. Warner schedules substantial vacation time with the children. The physical placement is equal: the children spend every other week with each parent....
The father's "main argument" is that the children did well when both parents were working, and there does not seem to be any significant issue that they were doing well when the mother quit work. I think the dissenting opinion states my thoughts much better than I could. I think this portion of the dissent is an excellent summary:
The decision to retire at an early age while obligated for child support [should be]disfavored. Nonetheless, courts should accept that decision as long as the retiring parent has sufficient assets or income to meet the expected support obligation. The retiring parent will be required to use income and to liquidate his or her assets before requiring the non-retiring spouse to support the retiring spouse's unilateral decision to retire. I agree with the majority that "shirking" is an unfortunate term, better suited for cases where a support payer is unemployed or has changed jobs. Yet, the majority has shoehorned this case into a "shirking" analysis. The result is an inquiry into the reasonableness of Dr. Chen's actions without considering Dr. Warner's desire not to be bound by Dr. Chen's unilateral decision, and not to pay for Dr. Chen's retirement. Of course, both Dr. Chen and Dr. Warner are ultimately responsible for their children's support. That overrides either of their economic interests.
The mother's "sacrifice" must be viewed in the context that she still has an estate of nearly $1.7 million that she is not required to touch for the support of the children. Her drop in income is her own choice. Apparently she turned down work that would take her out of town the weeks she doesn't have the children. The mother's activities with the children are admirable, but it also is admirable to see a parent working to support their children, or making the financial sacrifices that accompany the decision to stay at home. Dr. Chen isn't making a sacrifice here, because she is expecting the father to make up the difference from her quitting. As for the little girl who will grow up thinking her father believed "the nanny was good enough": the mother thought the same thing. These children are in school fulltime and with their mother one-half the remaining time. The mother's desire to be more involved with her children is great and I commend it. The question, however, is whether that decision is to be financed by her ex-husband.