Ex objected administative review states I am under employed

[twinkletoes2189]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OH

My Ex has objected to the administrative review and adjustment hearing decision on the basis that I am under employed. During the hearing the adminstrator explained to my Ex that according to the child support law I am not under employed. That I have had the same job for over 3 years and did not willful leave my other job.
Here is my history of employment: Upon returning to my last job (in april 2008) after my maternity leave (I had FMLA due to complicated pregnancy), I was informed that they could on give me 1-2 days back instead of my 4-5 days that I use to carry. Working those 4-5 days a week generated an imcome of $35-40,000. So I dusted off my resume and started applying for nursing jobs. I acquired a job that is an on-call Infusion specialist. Your income is generated according to the number of calls u recieve. If a nursing home needs you they call you. It seemed that it offered a potential of making more money then staying at the current job and only making half of what I was. The first year was decent I made $25,000. Then the next two years due to the ecomomic crisis the calls slowed down. The second yr I made $20,000 and this last year was horrible I made only $13,000. I am remarried so my husbands job and mine together has been sufficent for us. I have looked for some other jobs off and on and applied but no responses.
My Ex came with a large list of nursing jobs telling me to get them and get a real full time job. I currently cover a 160 hrs of call time in a 2 week period. I like my job...alot. So the administrator told him he would average out the last 3 yrs and adjust child support according to that instead of just using my last years income. My ex thought it was unfair that I got a credit for having a 3 yr old that wasn't his and that he thought he shouldn't have to pay more child support so I could be home with my toddler more....and I should get a different job. Child support was reduced after the hearing by a small amount, but not enough for my Ex. Now we have to go in front of a judge because my EX still does not agree. What will happen now? Will the judge force me to get another job? What do I need to do now?

 

[Isis1]

The judge cannot force you to get another job. That would be unconstitutional. You may be inputted an income that equals to your potential from your past pay. However, your downsizing was through no fault of your own, so the judge might take that into consideration as well. And you did look for supplemental income.
At 160 hours every two weeks, that's 80 hours a week, average 10 hours plus a day for 7 days, 15 hours a day for a five day week. Is he trying to be stupid?

 

[mistoffolees]

The judge cannot force you to get another job. That would be unconstitutional. You may be inputted an income that equals to your potential from your past pay. However, your downsizing was through no fault of your own, so the judge might take that into consideration as well. And you did look for supplemental income.
At 160 hours every two weeks, that's 80 hours a week, average 10 hours plus a day for 7 days, 15 hours a day for a five day week. Is he trying to be stupid?

I don't see it that way. Last year, OP made $13 K working those hours. That works out to just over $3 per hour. Even in the 'good' year at $25 K, that's still a good bit less than minimum wage.

OP is apparently some type of nurse - and could easily be making far more than that. While the cutbacks were clearly involuntary, OP chose to take a low paying job for the sake of convenience rather than looking for a comparable job in his/her field. OP doesn't state what credentials he/she has, but most nursing jobs are in the $30 K and up range for 40 hours. Heck, s/he could work at McDonalds and make more than s/he's making now.

Looks to me like a very strong case could be made that OP is voluntarily underemployed.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't see it that way. Last year, OP made $13 K working those hours. That works out to just over $3 per hour. Even in the 'good' year at $25 K, that's still a good bit less than minimum wage.

OP is apparently some type of nurse - and could easily be making far more than that. While the cutbacks were clearly involuntary, OP chose to take a low paying job for the sake of convenience rather than looking for a comparable job in his/her field. OP doesn't state what credentials he/she has, but most nursing jobs are in the $30 K and up range for 40 hours. Heck, s/he could work at McDonalds and make more than s/he's making now.

Looks to me like a very strong case could be made that OP is voluntarily underemployed.

The hearing administrator didn't think so:

During the hearing the adminstrator explained to my Ex that according to the child support law I am not under employed. That I have had the same job for over 3 years and did not willful leave my other job.

Its possible that the judge will disagree with the hearing administrator, but its equally possible that the judge won't. I don't see the OP getting imputed at the 35-40k range like she made back in 2008, but its possible that she could be imputed an amount higher than the 13k she made last year.

 

[mistoffolees]

The hearing administrator didn't think so:



Its possible that the judge will disagree with the hearing administrator, but its equally possible that the judge won't. I don't see the OP getting imputed at the 35-40k range like she made back in 2008, but its possible that she could be imputed an amount higher than the 13k she made last year.

And that's why Ex has the right to ask for a judge to rule on the matter. I didn't say that the judge will absolutely rule against OP, but there's plenty of justification for ex to try. Given the circumstances, I'd certainly rule that OP is underemployed and impute a significantly higher income. Just how much higher would depend on his/her experience and what similar jobs are paying in the area.

 

[twinkletoes2189]

I did make $35,000 the year before I returned from maternity leave because I was working 4-5 days a week. When I returned they cut my hours to 1-2 days a week if I would have stayed at that job I would have made less then what I made the following 2 yrs with my current job. I carry 16 hr and 24 hour call shifts. I don't have time to work another job. If I do get another job I will have to give up my call time and if I give it up I will never get it back. They will have to hire somone else and there are many many nurses who have given me their number cause they want a job like mine and have been looking for one. I did not want to leave my other job, I loved it! it was them who cut back my hours. I have applied for some other jobs but I don't want to work just anywhere, I want to use my Infusion Skills....those jobs are hard to find. Not to mention there are so many gradutating for nursing schools lately and alot have a bachelors....I only have an associates. Places will hire someone with a bachelors or an associates.

Some small history: When I was married to my Ex I was a stay at home mom for 9 yrs until I convinced him to allow me to go to college. The relationship was so dysfunctional that he said no because he didn't want me around other men. I convinced him to allow it. Then 6 months after I graduated from nursing school he left me for my friend. I NEVER worked until the last 6 months of our marriage because that is how he wanted it. Now he wants the oppisite to benefit him. He also gave up custody of the kids during the divorce as long as I didn't make him pay half of my school loans.

Bottom line if I would have stayed at my other job I would make less or about the same. The ecomony is hard and to fine a job fitting my skills is hard to find. When you get those u stay! Nursing is versitile but it is according to ur speciality. Example just because one becomes a lawyer doesn't mean he should get any job in any field. If u work as a immigration laywer your not going to take a job as a civil lawyer because it pays more.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I agree with OP. There are many underpaid professionals in OH in many disciplines. I would save some job ads, if you can find them listing salaries.

 

[mistoffolees]

I agree with OP. There are many underpaid professionals in OH in many disciplines. I would save some job ads, if you can find them listing salaries.

The difference is that OP has made absolutely no effort to take a job which comes close to what she was making before.

It is certainly understandable that her hours were cut. That's not her choice. It is also understandable that she had to take a job which paid slightly less ($25 K vs $35 K) than she was making before. But her salary dropped to $20 K, then $13 K (considerably less than minimum wage) and she made no effort to find a good job - even though there are jobs in the area (ex has brought in want ads).

Now, I could understand if OP had made an effort to find another job and simply failed to do so in spite of a real effort. In that case, the judge might easily say (and probably rightly so) that OP is not voluntarily underemployed. But when OP is taking a less than minimum wage job in spite of being capable of earning far more than that WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORT to rectify the situation, I'd certainly say she's voluntarily underemployed.

It's nice that Mom can have a low paying job because she enjoys the work, but does the child need less food because Mom chose a more enjoyable job?

 

[mistoffolees]

Bottom line if I would have stayed at my other job I would make less or about the same.

That's a logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy'.

You are pretending that there were only two options: take the new job or take reduced hours at the old job.

There is actually a third option - you could have taken the new job and then continued to look for employment commensurate with your skills and abilities. Now, if you had looked diligently and couldn't find anything, you probably wouldn't be imputed an income. But since you apparently haven't made any effort to even try, you could be imputed an income.

Why should the child have to suffer from reduced support because you'd rather rely on your current sugar daddy instead of getting a job that pays a reasonable salary?

 

[twinkletoes2189]

There is alot of assumptions just made. I did look for a new job that was within my realm of specialty and applied for them. I still have a family and a HUSBAND not a sugar daddy! That was very offensive statement! I am raising a 16 yr old and a three year so What ever job I apply for needs to work with my skills and my family. I set priority just as evryone does! What is most and least important. Some choose careers over ANYTHING and some choose family. AND I want to know why when I was married to him it was so important to him that I didn't work and that he made very clear that he wanted me to stay home with the children and take care of him, it was all ok and no problem. However, now that I have a new HUSBAND (NOT A SUGAR DADDY) and a new family it is NOT ok to place them first like I did the whole 12 years I was married to him! The first 9 I stayed home and the last 3 I went to college and tended to my family. Again I continuely look for jobs that fit with my skills and have applied for them. My husband was laided off last year and both him and I was looking hard! But when he returned to work first we decided that is was best to stay at my current job it was the most conducive for our family. And lets say I go and get this full time job doesn't mean his child support would be any lower. The last time we went to court I agreed to lower his child support because he owed me over 2 thousand in rearage and another $2,000 of out of pocket expenses that he never paid me. I had to file comtmpt of court against him. So in order to make life easier on him I agreed to lower the child support by a $100 a month.

 

[mistoffolees]

There is alot of assumptions just made. I did look for a new job that was within my realm of specialty and applied for them. I still have a family and a HUSBAND not a sugar daddy! That was very offensive statement! I am raising a 16 yr old and a three year so What ever job I apply for needs to work with my skills and my family. I set priority just as evryone does! What is most and least important. Some choose careers over ANYTHING and some choose family. AND I want to know why when I was married to him it was so important to him that I didn't work and that he made very clear that he wanted me to stay home with the children and take care of him, it was all ok and no problem. However, now that I have a new HUSBAND (NOT A SUGAR DADDY) and a new family it is NOT ok to place them first like I did the whole 12 years I was married to him! The first 9 I stayed home and the last 3 I went to college and tended to my family. Again I continuely look for jobs that fit with my skills and have applied for them. My husband was laided off last year and both him and I was looking hard! But when he returned to work first we decided that is was best to stay at my current job it was the most conducive for our family. And lets say I go and get this full time job doesn't mean his child support would be any lower. The last time we went to court I agreed to lower his child support because he owed me over 2 thousand in rearage and another $2,000 of out of pocket expenses that he never paid me. I had to file comtmpt of court against him. So in order to make life easier on him I agreed to lower the child support by a $100 a month.

Thanks for confirming my guess. Call him a husband or a sugar daddy - the facts don't change. You are voluntarily earning less than you could be because you are able to rely on your husband/sugar daddy's income.

As I said, if you can demonstrate that you diligently looked for jobs AND DID NOT DECLINE an offered job, you may not be considered voluntarily underemployed. But if you didn't make a real effort to find a job or if you declined a higher paying job, then you ARE voluntarily underemployed.

 

[twinkletoes2189]

Mistoffolees you must have a really sour taste in ur mouth. I HAVE looked for jobs and have NEVER turned down a job offer. He is my HUSBAND and we work together as family unit. I am sensing you don't know what that is and live a lonely life. Well at least with your attitude I just ASSUME you do, the way you make ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[mistoffolees]

Mistoffolees you must have a really sour taste in ur mouth. I HAVE looked for jobs and have NEVER turned down a job offer. He is my HUSBAND and we work together as family unit. I am sensing you don't know what that is and live a lonely life. Well at least with your attitude I just ASSUME you do, the way you make ASSUMPTIONS.

The difference, of course, is that you're making wild-a$$ed guesses and calling them assumptions.

Here's what you said:
" I have looked for some other jobs off and on and applied but no responses."
AND
"I like my job...alot."
AND
"Some choose careers over ANYTHING and some choose family."
AND
"What ever job I apply for needs to work with my skills and my family."
AND
"when he returned to work first we decided that is was best to stay at my current job it was the most conducive for our family."

I'm sorry, but looking for other jobs off and on is not a diligent effort. It's clear that you're not looking very hard. Furthermore, if you were serious about an income to support your family, you wouldn't be working for $3 per hour.

Everything in your posts strongly suggests that you are voluntarily earning less than you could be. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you're not evading your other obligations. You, OTOH, appear to be evading your other obligations and expecting your ex to pick up the slack.

 

[Ohiogal]

The judge cannot force you to get another job. That would be unconstitutional. You may be inputted an income that equals to your potential from your past pay. However, your downsizing was through no fault of your own, so the judge might take that into consideration as well. And you did look for supplemental income.
At 160 hours every two weeks, that's 80 hours a week, average 10 hours plus a day for 7 days, 15 hours a day for a five day week. Is he trying to be stupid?

Imputation is a lot harder now. Actually correction Misleh v. Badwan 2009-Ohio-842. Hubbard v. Hubbard 2009-Ohio-2194.

 

[mistoffolees]

Imputation is a lot harder now. Actually correction Misleh v. Badwan 2009-Ohio-842. Hubbard v. Hubbard 2009-Ohio-2194.

It looks like those were based on technicalities:

Misleh:
"Because the trial court failed to make an explicit finding that Misleh was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, this Court reverses and remands."

So, if the court had made an explicit finding that Misleh was voluntarily underemployed, it looks like it would have been OK.

Hubbard, it looks like imputed income wasn't even an issue.