An Indiana doctor cut her hours to care for her newborn and reported earning $6,677 a week, but her divorce court calculated her earning capacity at $8,811 a week; an appeals court has upheld the ruling

Ashraf reduced her workload to three-quarters of a full-time schedule to look after their daughter (AI image)

An Indiana doctor who reduced her working hours to care for her newborn daughter has lost her appeal against a divorce court’s decision to calculate her weekly earning capacity at $8,811, despite her reporting an income of $6,677 a week. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday siad that the lower court had sufficient evidence to conclude that Aiza Ashraf, a radiologist, was capable of working full-time. The judges also upheld an order allowing her former husband, Mohsin Mukhtar, to spend three nights a week with their young daughter.Ashraf and Mukhtar, both radiologists employed by Indiana University, married in 2018 and welcomed their daughter in August 2024, according to the case details available on Justia. Ashraf filed for divorce the following month. The couple’s separation led to disagreements over their daughter’s care, parenting time, and the income that should be considered when calculating child support.Both doctors received payments from Indiana University for teaching and from IU Health for providing medical services. They also had opportunities to earn additional money by taking extra shifts, commonly referred to as “moonlighting”. Before taking maternity leave, Ashraf earned the same base salary as her husband.However, in January 2025, Ashraf reduced her workload to three-quarters of a full-time schedule to look after their daughter. She told the court that her gross weekly income was $6,677. Mukhtar argued that she could still earn the same base salary as him if she returned to full-time work.

Why court calculated income higher

During the divorce proceedings, Ashraf explained that she specialised in breast imaging radiology and planned to maintain her credentials in that field rather than general diagnostic radiology.She said opportunities for additional shifts were limited because breast imaging was generally performed during regular working hours.Mukhtar disagreed. He told the court that both had the same employment contract and that Ashraf retained the training, qualifications and licence needed to perform general radiology work.He asked the court to calculate both parents’ weekly income at $8,811, excluding earnings from additional shifts.On October 13, last year, the Hamilton Circuit Court accepted that Ashraf could work full-time and assessed her earning capacity at $8,811 per week.Ashraf challenged the decision, arguing that she had reduced her hours to care for her daughter rather than to avoid financial responsibilities.The appeals court examined whether the lower court had acted improperly by using her potential earnings instead of her reported income.Under Indiana’s child support rules, courts can consider what a parent is capable of earning when that parent is voluntarily unemployed or working fewer hours than their qualifications and opportunities would allow.The appeals judges noted that Ashraf had acknowledged she could work additional hours if she wanted. They also considered evidence that she previously earned the same base salary as Mukhtar.The court rejected her argument that the $8,811 figure improperly included her husband’s additional earnings. Both parents’ financial documents identified that amount as his base weekly pay, excluding extra shifts.

Dispute over overnight stays with father

The case also involved a disagreement over how much time Mukhtar should spend with their daughter. According to the judgment, both parents initially helped care for the baby after her birth. However, in September 2024, Ashraf began sleeping in the nursery and prevented Mukhtar from entering the room.A preliminary court order issued in December 2024 did not allow overnight stays with the father. It provided that he could request them when the child turned six months old or began eating solid food.Mukhtar subsequently requested more time with his daughter, but Ashraf refused. On one occasion, she left the child with her maternal grandmother in Texas for two nights rather than arrange overnight care with Mukhtar.At the final divorce hearing in March 2025, Ashraf proposed gradually increasing the father’s parenting time, with overnight stays beginning when their daughter turned two.She explained that she intended to continue breastfeeding until that age and wanted to be available to comfort the child at night.Mukhtar sought equal parenting time, including overnight stays. He told the court that he had participated in the baby’s early care, regularly exercised his permitted parenting time and completed parenting courses.The lower court eventually awarded him three days of parenting time each week, including overnight stays.

Appeals court upholds both decisions

Ashraf challenged the overnight arrangement, arguing that the immediate increase from no overnight stays to three per week was not in their daughter’s best interests.The appeals court acknowledged that the arrangement went beyond the usual recommendations under Indiana’s parenting time guidelines for young children.However, it found that the lower court had considered the circumstances of the family, including Mukhtar’s involvement in childcare, his completion of parenting courses and his ability to provide suitable accommodation.The judges also considered the lower court’s concern that a gradual increase in parenting time might not happen because Ashraf had previously refused additional visits. The appeals court therefore concluded that the lower court had sufficient grounds to approve the arrangement.