to take responsibility for criminal acts and all repercussions that flow from them); State v. Nelson, 587 So.2d 176, 178 (La.Ct.App.1991) (finding that a voluntary act cannot be used to justify the extinction of a protected right such as child support); Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299, 301 (N.D.1990) (finding that a voluntary change of circumstances does not justify modification, espe ated obligor will be relieved of the support obligation unless other assets are available to satisfy it. See, e.g., Peters v. Peters, 69 Ohio App.3d 275, 590 N.E.2d 777, 778-79 (1990) (finding that elimination of income resulting from incarceration is not a voluntary act and that obligation should be suspended unless obligor had other assets); Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512, 757 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, some jurisdictions grant
holding a party cannot attempt to modify the allocation of the income tax dependency exemption within the oneyear period imposed under ndcc  14090844 because allowing an obligor or obligee to parse various facets of a child support obligation through numerous chai lenges  would defeat the limited finality feature of the law holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid holding that government has obligation to provide for health needs of incarcerated prisoners holding that obligor who is incarcerated for crime other than failure to pay support should be relieved of obligation unless obligor has other income or assets holding that a rule presuming a change of circumstances when the amount of child support ordered deviates more than fifteen percent from what would be owed under a current application of the guidelines does not apply if obligor agreed to the deviation