Current earnings are not the sole criterion to establish a party’s obligation for support. Lynn v. Lynn, 165 N.J.Super. 328, 341, 398 A.2d 141 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 81 N.J. 52, 404 A.2d 1152 (1979). The potential earning capacity of an individual, not his or her actual income, should be considered when determining the amount a supporting party must pay. Mowery v. Mowery, 38 N.J.Super. 92, 105, 118 A.2d 49 (App.Div.1955), certif. denied, 20 N.J. 307, 119 A.2d 791 (1956). Where the supporting parent’s income is reduced voluntarily, requests for modification routinely have been denied in New Jersey without regard to whether the reduction was incurred for the purpose of avoiding the support obligation. See Bencivenga v. Bencivenga, 254 N.J.Super. 328, 331, 603 A.2d 531 (App.Div.1992) (<HOLDING>); Lynn v. Lynn, supra, 165 N.J.Super. at
recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child holding that a parent who voluntarily leaves the world of gainful employment for however good a reason does not foreclose inquiry into the need for child support and the responsibility of that parent to supply it thus permitting a court to impute income to an obligor holding that a parent has a right of custody by reason of that parents ne exeat right the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country holding that the right to support is not subject to waiver by either parent holding in nonenforcement modification suit that court of continuing jurisdiction may order one parent to pay the reasonable attorneys fees of the other parent as additional child support if the fees are necessaries for the benefit of the children