In Gordon v. Gordon, 174 Md. App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (2007), the husband contended that his ex-wife had voluntarily impoverished herself when she left a job paying $ 120,000 a year and ended up in a job paying $ 25,000 a year. After considering all of the required factors in a case involving the amount of a child support award, the trial judge ruled that the ex-wife had not voluntarily impoverished herself. The Court affirmed that decision of the trial judge as one that was not an abuse of discretion and was not based on clearly erroneous fact-finding. Because of that procedural posture, an affirmance of the trial judge, the opinion is of limited support for our present decision to reverse the trial court. Judge Hollander's opinion, 174 Md. App. at 646, is nonetheless of value in describing the types of factors that are worthy of consideration when assessing the issue of voluntary impoverishment. The court looked at "the entire context" and did not quarrel with appellee's decision to leave her employment with AON. As for her other jobs, the court determined that appellee made legitimate choices under the circumstances. It recognized that appellee's income was significantly less than her level of income before David was born. Yet, the court did not view appellee's decision to leave her position with AON as being "done for purposes of this litigation ...." Rather, the court saw appellee's decision "as a career move, and it may be that there were other motivations other than the best career move, or the best monetary career move, for her, but I don't think that amounts to voluntary impoverishment."