New York Family Law Blog
In a recent case before the Family Court, Westchester County, a mother appealed an order denying her objections to a prior decision that directed the father to pay child support and spousal support. The court’s decision was based on imputing income to the mother.
Imputed income refers to the assignment of income to a parent for the purpose of calculating child support obligations, even if that parent does not currently earn that income. This legal concept is applied when the court believes that a parent has the capacity to earn more income than they are currently earning or reporting.
In child support proceedings, imputed income typically arises when one parent alleges that the other parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed to avoid or reduce their child support obligations. The court may impute income to the parent based on their earning capacity rather than their actual income. This ensures that the child’s financial needs are adequately met, regardless of the parent’s employment status or reported income.
The imputation of income is based by various factors, including the parent’s work history, education, job skills, and earning potential. The court may consider the parent’s past employment, education level, training, and job opportunities in determining their ability to earn income. For example, if a parent has a college degree and a history of earning a certain income level but is currently unemployed, the court may impute income based on their previous earnings or their potential to earn a similar income.
It’s important to note that imputed income is not arbitrary; rather, it is based on evidence presented to the court regarding the parent’s earning capacity. The court may require the parent to provide documentation of their job search efforts or educational pursuits to determine their ability to earn income. Additionally, the court may consider prevailing wage rates for similar positions in the parent’s local area to establish an appropriate imputed income level.
Imputed income ensures that both parents contribute to the financial support of their child according to their respective abilities. By imputing income to a parent who is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, the court aims to prevent financial hardship for the child and ensure that child support orders are fair and equitable.
Background Facts
The parties, who were married in 1996 and have two children, initiated divorce proceedings after their separation in 2015. Following their separation, the father voluntarily began making support payments to the mother. However, in January 2019, the mother initiated a proceeding in the Family Court to determine the father’s formal support obligations. After a hearing, a Support Magistrate imputed an annual income to the mother and directed the father to pay child and spousal support accordingly.
The mother objected to the Support Magistrate’s order, arguing that the imputation of income to her was unjustified. She contended that she was unable to work full-time due to her responsibilities caring for her elderly parents and the parties’ younger child, as well as undisclosed health limitations. The Family Court denied the mother’s objections, prompting her to appeal the decision.
Issue
The main issue in this case was whether the imputation of income to the mother and the corresponding support payments directed by the court were appropriate.
Holding
The court modified the original order to reflect the imputation of income to the mother but adjusted the amount based on the evidence presented. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a new determination of support obligations in accordance with the court’s findings.
Rationale
The court’s decision to impute income to the mother was based on established legal principles and the evidence presented during the proceedings. Under the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), courts have the authority to impute income to parties for the purpose of calculating support obligations. This imputation is not solely based on reported income but may also consider past earnings or potential future earnings.
In this case, the court found that the mother had a college degree and a demonstrated ability to work. Despite her assertions regarding caregiving responsibilities and health limitations, the court determined that she could reasonably work full-time for minimum wage. Additionally, the court considered the father’s consistent voluntary support payments since the parties’ separation as evidence of the mother’s ability to work.
While the court upheld the decision to impute income to the mother, it found an error in the calculation of additional income imputed based on past payments from her parents. This nuanced analysis reflects the court’s commitment to fair and equitable determinations of support obligations in divorce proceedings, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
This case highlights the complexities of determining support obligations in divorce proceedings and the importance of a thorough review of the facts. When facing the complexities of divorce matters in New York, seeking the assistance of an experienced New York divorce lawyer is essential. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. With over 25 years of experience, in divorce and family law matters in New York, we have the knowledge and resources to help ensure that your interested as protected throughout the process.