question on imputing wages

[bloom6372]

I just have a quick question on imputing wages...

BM has a degree in something to do with computers (I'm pretty sure it's graphic design). She doesn't use that degree. BM was working part time (willfully chosing only part time) making $11.66 an hour. She chose to change to a job paying between $8-9, again only part time (by part time we are talking 2 days a week, sometimes 3). She is pregnant, and during a conversation with SD when DH asked if she was excited about her new baby sister coming, SD said something about BM quitting working after the baby is born (permanently, not just the normal 6 weeks). We are a year out for automatic review (BM has govt assistance), but BM making $0 and DH making more than he did at the last review, we know she'll try to get more. So, my question is can DH request an imputed wage at full time minimum wage, or would it only be part time? We have no way to prove what she could be making with her degree, which is why I asked about minimum wage. I asked around on a few other boards, but wanted to double check with you all to get a consensus.

[gemini3]

Has she ever been employed full-time?  If not, you probably won't get wages imputed at a higher rate or for a hypothetical position.  You will probably be able to get them imputed for her previous income, based on the fact that she is willfully unemployed.

[bloom6372]

I'm not sure, to be honest. I THINK she worked full time in a school office before she switched to substitute teaching and now as a paraprofessional, but the last 2.5 years she has been working only part time (since her DH has been supporting her). Even if he could get her wages imputed at the 11.66 an hour for 20 hours (what she usually works), he'd be fine. He just doesn't want his CS for SD to go up just because she quits working.

[gemini3]

I doubt that you would be able to imput on full-time wages.  She hasn't been employed full-time recently, and BF didn't object to CS being calculated on part-time wages originally.  I think he would have a good case for imputing her most recent wage history.

What state are you in?  Most states have statutes regarding imputing income.  Look yours up so you have it ready.

Also, a lot of the time you have to have wages imputed through a judges order.  Child support enforcement doesn't always do it.  So, when the review comes, they may set it at her new income level and then BF would have to appeal based on the state staute for imputing income.

[bloom6372]

They agreed on CS outside of the CSEA. It was just put into the CO as they agreed. They did a review in 2009, but it didn't get changed (she didn't tell them about the CS he was already COed to pay through the original state). It should have been reduced, but DH filed a response where he requested it stay the same (it would have gone down only about $50, and he didn't think it was worth the fight). She claimed her income was just under $7000 in 2009, but didn't include her side job of tutoring (since she got paid cash from parents). Like I said, he's fine with the current CS-he just doesn't want it increased because of her choosing to quit working.

The CO is through MI (we don't live there).

It's good to know he will have to take it through the Court to get it ordered to impute wages if it comes to it. We thought we'd have to go through the FOC when they did the review.

Thanks for the wonderful advice, as always!

[gemini3]

If CS is part of the CO agreement, and not set by CSEA, then that's the amount unless she appeals it.  When the review is done, DH should show them the CO and that should be the end of it.

[bloom6372]

If CS is part of the CO agreement, and not set by CSEA, then that's the amount unless she appeals it.  When the review is done, DH should show them the CO and that should be the end of it.

That's what we are hoping. DH had to send in the CO in 2009 since BM claimed she wasn't getting any CS on her govt assistance. When they came after DH for CS, he sent them the CO showing that he already has a set CS amount. They dropped the review that time.