Career Change / Imputing Income

[RV9Factory]

I understand that if a court finds the non-custodial parent is deliberately unemployed or underemployed it can impute income for support purposes.

1.  If a reduction in income is from a legitimate career change (not for the purpose of reducing support), could some sort of 'equal protection' challenge to imputed income be viable?  After all, married parents can change careers or switch jobs with the resultant impact on their children.

Thanks, Soc.

[socrateaser]

>>I understand that if a court finds the non-custodial parent
>>is deliberately unemployed or underemployed it can impute
>>income for support purposes.
>>
>>1.  If a reduction in income is from a legitimate career
>>change (not for the purpose of reducing support), could some
>>sort of 'equal protection' challenge to imputed income be
>>viable?  After all, married parents can change careers or
>>switch jobs with the resultant impact on their children.

Equal protection requires that the state treat persons similarly in similar circumstances. Where a law discriminates based on race, national origin/ethnicity, and sometimes alienage, the state must show that the law advances a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Where the law discriminates based on gender, the state must show an important relationship to a substantial interest. In all other circumstances, the challenger must show that the state action is not reasonably related to any rational interest.

Here, your claim that you are being treated differently than married persons because such persons cannot have their income imputed for the purposes of paying support, is not related to either race, national origin, or gender, so the court need only apply the rational basis test.

There is nothing irrational about requiring divorced or never married parents to work to their earning capacity in supporting their minor children, when compared to married persons, because married persons are not likely to intentionally reduce their earnings due to alienation from their children, whereas divorced and never married persons with children, can quickly lose any emotional attachment to the importance of supporting their children. Thus, the law does not violate equal protection, and will not be found unconstitutional.

The government's position is simply that if an obligor parent wants to change careers, that parent is free to do so, as long as the parent continues to pay the support that he/she would pay, were he/she to not have changed careers, because the duty to support one's children is more important than the right of a person to choose any particular employment or means of earning.

However, there is some case law, particularly in California, where a military pilot was permitted to reduce his income in order to take a lower paying job as a commercial pilot. The court found that there was a reasonable probability that the change would improve the obligor's actual earning capacity within a short enough period of time, that the ultimate outcome would be in the child's best interests.

That is, the ultimate amount of support paid over the child's minority would be greater than without the career change, and the time period of the reduction would not cause an unreasonable diminishing of the child's standard of living.

So, if you want to mirror this argument, then you need to show the court how your career change will be reasonably likely to quickly result in higher support payments. If you can, then you have a case. Otherwise, you're SOL.

[RV9Factory]

(nt)