My response:
Apparently, the writer deleted the post herself. I can only imagine that she didn't "relish" the fact that I told her to start learning how to flip hamburgers.
Don't worry - - similar questions come up at least once per week and, if I see them, I'll post the same information for you, and for that future writer.
Don't sweat it, baby!
IAAL
P.S. Here's my original response:
My response:
The statewide uniform child support guideline (Ca Fam § 4050 et seq.) expressly gives trial courts discretion to impute earning capacity income to a parent "in lieu of" that parent's actual income without specifically narrowing the appropriate circumstances to deliberate attempts to shirk support responsibilities. [Ca Fam § 4058(b); see Marriage of Destein, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1396, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d at 494-495--imputing earning capacity income not restricted to cases of diminished postseparation income]
Indeed, so long as the parent has a measurable "earning capacity", but subject to the condition that use of the earning capacity standard must be "consistent with the best interests of the children" (Ca Fam § 4058(b), the statutory scheme neither suggests any particular circumstances under which the trial court may consider earning capacity nor in any way restricts the manner in which it may consider earning capacity in fixing child support. [Moss v. Super.Ct. (Ortiz) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396, 424, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 233; Marriage of Simpson (1992) 4 Cal.4th 225, 233, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 415-416; Marriage of Smith (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 74, 81, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 537, 541]
Thus, whether earnings should be imputed to an underemployed or unemployed parent is addressed to the trial court's sound discretion. All circumstances relevant to that determination may be considered upon presentation by the parties, giving due regard, however, to the overriding policy interests in ensuring adequate child support. [Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 999, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 383, 390]
Public policy supports imputing income based on earning capacity without regard to the parent's motivation for reducing available income. [Marriage of Padilla (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1218, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 555, 558; see Moss v. Super.Ct. (Ortiz), supra, 17 Cal.4th at 424, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d at 233--"We agree with the Padilla court . . ."; see also Marriage of Destein, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1391, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d at 491--"The strong public policy in favor of providing adequate child support has led to an expansive use of the earning capacity doctrine . . . when consistent with the needs of the child"]
a. The statewide uniform child support guideline recognizes as its paramount policy directive that a parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life (Ca Fam § 4053(a));
b. Child support obligations must be considered whenever an obligor parent wishes to pursue a different lifestyle or endeavor (Marriage of Ilas (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1630, 1635, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 348; Marriage of Hinman, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at 999, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d at 390);
c. Child support obligations must be met before other expenses are paid (Ca Fam § 4011);
d. Parents have no right to divest themselves of earning ability at the expense of minor children. [See generally, Marriage of Ilas, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at 1639, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d at 350; Marriage of Padilla, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1218, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d at 558; see also Marriage of LaBass & Munsee (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1339, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 393, 398]
Under current law, the only limitations against imputing income to an underearning parent is where the parent in fact has no "earning capacity" (no ability or opportunity to earn) or where relying on earning capacity would not be consistent with the child's best interests. "Bad faith" (deliberate avoidance of family financial responsibilities) is not a condition precedent to using imputed income in setting the amount of child support. [Moss v. Super.Ct. (Ortiz) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396, 424, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 233; Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 998, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 383, 389 (citing text); State of Oregon v. Vargas (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1126, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 231]
Indeed, a parent's subjective motivation for reducing available income is irrelevant to the court's power to consider earning capacity. Nor, under current law, does use of imputed earnings turn on whether the payor "unreasonably" failed to seek or accept employment. [Marriage of Hinman, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at 998-999, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d at 389; see Marriage of Destein, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1395, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d at 493-494 (citing text)--"It is not only unwise or unreasonable employment decisions which trigger court reliance on earning capacity"]
"We . . . decline to read into Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b), any limitation on the discretion vested in the trial court to consider earning capacity in determining the appropriate amount of child support when doing so would be in the child's best interests." [Moss v. Super.Ct. (Ortiz), supra, 17 Cal.4th at 424, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d at 233]
In summary, re-read a through d again carefully. Your income will be imputed, and you may want to start learning how to flip hamburgers.
IAAL
