delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Eugene Clyatt, Jr., appeals from the denial of his motion to modify his child support obligations by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. We affirm.
The issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Eugene’s motion to modify his child support obligations.
*121Teri Clyatt and Eugene Clyatt, Jr., were married in July, 1987. One child was bom of this marriage, Amanda Jean Clyatt. Teri and Eugene were divorced in January, 1992. The District Court granted joint custody and appointed Teri primary residential parent. The court ordered Eugene to pay Teri $300 per month for child support. Eugene made the required payments from the time of the divorce decree until July, 1993. He failed to make support payments for the months of July, August, September, and October of 1993. Eugene also failed to pay for one-half of his daughter’s medical expenses for which he was responsible.
Teri moved the District Court to order Eugene to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for his failure to pay child support. Following a hearing, the court found Eugene in contempt of court for failing to pay his child support obligations. Eugene then moved the District Court to reconsider its contempt of court ruling and to modify his child support obligation. The court denied both motions. Eugene appeals only the court’s denial of his motion to modify the child support obligation.
The District Court based its decision on the following facts. Prior to and immediately following the divorce, Eugene worked for his father at Clyatt Construction Company. While employed at Clyatt Construction, Eugene had sufficient income to pay the $300 per month child support obligation. He voluntarily quit his job with Clyatt Construction due to personal problems between him and his father. Eugene did not seek alternative construction employment, despite having experience and expertise in that field. Rather, he enrolled in college at the University of Montana. Eugene worked part-time at McDonald-Armstrong Investment, Limited, earning a net income of approximately $460 per month. He lived with his parents and paid no rent. His parents paid for his college tuition.
* * *
Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Eugene’s motion to modify his child support obligation?
Eugene argues that the District Court should have modified his child support obligation. Before a child support obligation can be modified, a party must establish that there are changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of the existing agreement unconscionable. Section 40-4-208(2)(b), MCA. The District Court found that no substantial and continuing change in circumstances existed. As such, the court did not address whether *122the alleged changed circumstance rendered the terms of the agreement unconscionable.
We will not disturb the District Court’s ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. In Re the Marriage of Durbin (1991), 251 Mont. 51, 55, 823 P.2d 243, 245. This Court gives great deference to the trial court’s judgment, presuming its decision to be correct. In Re the Marriage of Carlson (1984), 214 Mont. 209, 214, 693 P.2d 496, 499.
The District Court found that Eugene did not show a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. There is sufficient evidence in the record to uphold this finding. Eugene voluntarily quit his employment with Clyatt Construction and did not actively seek other employment in the construction field. Eugene admits he is a skilled carpenter, yet he chose to return to school rather than remain employed in the construction business. Eugene’s current employment condition was clearly of his own making.
When an individual voluntarily decreases his or her ability to pay child support, it is up to the district court to determine whether there has been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances. In In Re the Marriage of Rome (1981), 190 Mont. 495, 497, 621 P.2d 1090, 1092, the father voluntarily left his employment in the hardware business and began a less lucrative career in the logging industry. In upholding the district court’s denial of the father’s motion to modify his child support payments, this Court stated:
Although we hold that a reduction in ability to pay brought about through a voluntary change in circumstances is not, in itself, sufficient to mandate a modification of support, neither do we approve the view that self-imposed changes can never be considered as reasons for modification. The better approach is to allow the judge to consider the nature of the changes and the reasons for the changes, and then to determine whether, under all the circumstances, a modification is warranted.
Rome, 621 P.2d at 1092.
There is substantial evidence in this case that Eugene voluntarily terminated his employment with Clyatt Construction and did not attempt to procure substitute employment in the field in which he was skilled. It therefore was within the discretion of the District Court to determine that no substantial and continuing change in circumstances existed.
District courts should consider several factors when determining whether a parent can meet his or her current child support obligations or if such support obligations should be modified, including:
*123(1) The parent’s ability to earn an income;
(2) The parent’s willingness to earn an income and support his child;
(3) The availability of jobs;
(4) The parent’s use of his funds to provide himself only with the bare necessities of life prior to providing support for his child.
In Re the Marriage of Callahan (1988), 233 Mont. 465, 469, 762 P.2d 205, 208 (emphasis added). The record indicates that Eugene was able to earn an income sufficient to pay his child support obligation while working at Clyatt Construction. The record likewise reflects his unwillingness to support his child by voluntarily quitting his construction job and returning to school. Taking these factors into consideration, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Eugene’s choice to quit his job and subsequently return to school did not constitute a substantial and continuing change in circumstances.
Eugene argues that the District Court erred in not making a finding concerning unconscionability. We find no merit in this argument. This Court recently indicated that a change in circumstances and unconscionability are two distinct factors which must be independently established. In In Re the Marriage of Barnard (1994), 264 Mont. 103, 870 P.2d 91, we stated:
It is obvious that Timothy’s financial success constitutes a change in circumstance. However, this fact, by itself, does not render the prior child support award unconscionable.
Barnard, 870 P.2d at 93-94. Changed circumstances and unconscionability are clearly two separate factors that the court can address independently of each other.
Section 40-4-208(2)(b), MCA, likewise suggests that a finding of changed circumstances is a prerequisite to any inquiry into the unconscionability of the agreement:
Whenever the decree proposed for modification contains provisions relating to maintenance or support, modification under subsection (1) may only be made:
(i) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable ....
Absent a finding of changed circumstances, the court’s analysis need go no further. Only after finding that the circumstances surrounding the child support obligation have substantially and continually *124changed must the court make a determination concerning unconscionability.
The District Court denied Eugene’s motion for modification of his child support obligation because it found no substantial and continuing change in circumstances. The District Court stated:
The Court finds that [Eugene] has shown little initiative to provide support for his child, despite his contentions to the contrary. While his stated goal of furthering his education is commendable, it does not override his obligation to provide his child with support, nor constitute changed circumstance.
(Emphasis added.)
We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no substantial or continuing change in circumstances existed. We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court.
We need not address Eugene’s argument regarding § 40-4-204, MCA. Section 40-4-204(3)(a), MCA, states:
Whenever a court issues or modifies an order concerning child support, the court shall determine the child support obligation by applying the standards in this section and the uniform child support guidelines....
Since we conclude that the District Court properly denied modification of the child support obligation, the child support guidelines do not come into effect. We affirm the decision of the District Court.
JUSTICES HARRISON, HUNT and NELSON concur.