child support based on mom having "imaginary job"

[asof2005]

When my DH and the BM went in for their child support evaluation, she was not working (she chooses not to work).  They couldn't fit their unusual circumstances into their formula so they said if she was working, she would be making $/hr.  Now the amount they put her at was just above minimum wage.  She has certification to work in certain fields, and has made more than that amount the random time or two she has had a job in the past 3 years.  they both have physical and legal custody.  it is also based off of him with 183 overnights and her having 182 overnights.  is there something not quite right with them giving her that job and amount and that he has them more than her and he still has to pay her support?

[superdad01]

CS goes by whoever makes more... He does have alot of overnights, so any support paid should be minimal.

[ocean]

I would count your blessings that the judge imputed at least a number and not just zero. Many people on here have to fight to even get anything down when the person does not have a job.
Like the other poster said, his overnights should also come into play and should a pay a min percentage of what is left. Even 50/50 placement does not mean no child support. It is supposed to make the standard of living for the child equal in both houses...(I said supposed to...LOL...we all know that deviated A LOT depending on the state and judge).

[MixedBag]

It's called imputing income...

each state handles time with the child compared to child support differently in their formulas.

Here in AL, time with the child does not factor into child support (not that I agree with that).

SO...find your state's calculator and start testing the numbers.

[MrCustodyCoach]

A quick-and-dirty calculation you can do to get a very rough idea is, if you know the gross incomes, you just do simple math (in states which use the "income shares model" - which is most).

The income shares model is based upon equalizing the income between the homes - a RIDICULOUS methodology that often punishes - yes, you guessed it - the father.  It is alleged that the children are "entitled" to the same theoretical income as if the parents had stayed together.  Nevermind that they're not together and they now have to pay for separate households, but I digress...

If Dad makes $100,000 and Mom makes $50,000, in a shared income model state, half of the difference will flow to mom's household to "equalize" the income between households.  That figure would be $25K divided by 12 to get a monthly figure.

Now, the calculations are typically done to arrive at a NET income figure after going through the CS Department's magical computer program, and is affected by who is carrying the healthcare, childcare, and perhaps some other expenses.

However, the illustration above gives you a very rough guestimate  of how the process works and that's if the custody situation is 50/50.

From my perspective, it's not about the best interests of the children, in a majority of middle class cases, it's a simple transfer of wealth from the higher earning parent to the lower earning parent.  Debate and discussion for another day.