Where to start to change CS laws in a your state?

[qurice]

And herein lies my problem. I can't find anything in the statutes about imputing income. Where can I start to search for arguments to impute her an income?

(a) Determine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent including, but not limited to, the following: wages and salary income; income from self employment; income from commissions; income from investments, including dividends, interest income and income on any trust account or property; absent parent's portion of any joint income of both parents; workers' compensation, disability, unemployment, annuity and retirement benefits, including an individual retirement account (IRA); any other payments made by any person, private entity, federal or state government or any unit of local government; alimony; any income earned from an interest in or from inherited property; any other form of earned income; and gross income shall exclude any monetary benefits derived from a second household, such as income of the absent parent's current spouse;

The only thing I can think of is the bolded part of a statute you posted. I couldn't find anything else.

Maybe you can have a chat with some folks from CSE? They may be able to tell you how they do it when the obligor is underemployed.

 

[qurice]

I thought of a few more things:

My ex is a licensed property adjuster in the state of FL. You can go to FL CFO website and pull her license info. Would it be helpful for me to print her license listing and attach it to my pleadings? She has a Bachelor's Degree and a professional license. She is capable of working.

Also, and this is a bit complicated. I have a savings account with BoA. I never use it b/c there is no local branch. I think I got it b/c if I opened a savings account with them, I got a lower interest rate on my credit card.

Anyways, my ex does all her banking with BoA. When I sign in to online access with my BoA account, it shows me her accounts as well. I DO NOT have access to her accounts. It shows her checking and savings balances. That's it. For some reason, it has us linked, maybe from when we were married. I have called BoA and told them that we are no longer married and do not need access to one another's bank accounts. They have not corrected this issue.

As of today, her checking account balance is $24,000 and her savings account balance is $102,000. Now, I know that this is her bf's money. He is in deep doo-doo with the IRS to the tune of $250,000 +, so he hides money and assets under her name. She has told my wife this. It is fact.

Anyways, if I file a complaint against her, would I be able to request info about these accounts from her in the discovery process? What if she didn't furnish anything from these accounts? Could I subpeona the records?

Would it even be relevant? I guess my thinking is how does a woman who does not work have all this money and assets (motorcycles, cars, etc.)?

If she's not going to lie on the stand, she has to admit to helping her bf conceal assets from the IRS!

Your ex may have her own troubles with the IRS soon also. It's not like BoA is going to NOT report interest paid on that $$.

 

[2Mistakes]

(a) Determine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent including, but not limited to, the following: wages and salary income; income from self employment; income from commissions; income from investments, including dividends, interest income and income on any trust account or property; absent parent's portion of any joint income of both parents; workers' compensation, disability, unemployment, annuity and retirement benefits, including an individual retirement account (IRA); any other payments made by any person, private entity, federal or state government or any unit of local government; alimony; any income earned from an interest in or from inherited property; any other form of earned income; and gross income shall exclude any monetary benefits derived from a second household, such as income of the absent parent's current spouse;

The only thing I can think of is the bolded part of a statute you posted. I couldn't find anything else.

Maybe you can have a chat with some folks from CSE? They may be able to tell you how they do it when the obligor is underemployed.

Hmmm, ok, here's my thinking. And feel free to tell me if I'm stupid or not making sense. My argument is logical to me, but I know that logic and law don't always go hand in hand.

OK, the bolded part of the statute says: "Determine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent"

Well, my line of logic is this: I can prove that she has a Bachelor's Degree and an adjuster's license. Well, having a job as an adjuster is a POTENTIAL source of income (if she got off her lazy ass and got a job), and it is income that MAY BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE to her (again, if she got off her lazy ass and got a job doing what she is trained to do.)

Does that make sense? Feel free to clean up my argument.

 

[2Mistakes]

Your ex may have her own troubles with the IRS soon also. It's not like BoA is going to NOT report interest paid on that $$.

I have already downloaded the form from the IRS website that you use to report someone to them. I have not filled it out and sent it in, though.

I would be doing so strictly out of spite and to make her life hard, and that is NOT what this is about. This is about getting her to pay her fair share for the children that she helped to create.

 

[2Mistakes]

Oh my Lord, my head is spinning. I have been doing tons of research.

I found this case from the Mississippi Supreme Court:
http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO28510.pdf

Would someone glance at it and tell me if it applies to to my situation at all? It appears to me from this case that the judge has sole discretion in order child support, and if I can get my arguments throught to him clearly and consisely, he can deviate from the guidelines and order more child support.

 

[wileybunch]

(again, if she got off her lazy ass and got a job doing what she is trained to do.)

She may well be doing a job, just not THAT job.

 

[wileybunch]

Oh my Lord, my head is spinning. I have been doing tons of research.

I found this case from the Mississippi Supreme Court:
http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO28510.pdf

Would someone glance at it and tell me if it applies to to my situation at all? It appears to me from this case that the judge has sole discretion in order child support, and if I can get my arguments throught to him clearly and consisely, he can deviate from the guidelines and order more child support.

From what you've shared, I don't think this case relates to your situation. This is a case where the standard percentages are deviated from and child support increased so child can maintain the same standard of living as pre divorce.

The guidelines say that they apply "unless they are unjust or inappropriate under criteria specified in Section 43-19-103."

This is the section in 43-19-103 that I think pertains to your situation:

(i) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result
which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.

****

Having Mom not be responsible for ANY support of the children or for reduced amount that's not based on a true income is not equitable . She has the education and training to work for a decent wage and had been employed in that capacity before you split right? Or some time in the recent past anyway.

 

[2Mistakes]

She may well be doing a job, just not THAT job.

LOL. Here's the thing. On paper, she doesn't have a job. So we'll operate under that premise. Forget that she works for cash, b/c I have no way of proving it.

Now, under the premise that she is voluntarily unemployed, most states would impute an income for her, and calculate CS based on that.

According to the Office of the Inspector General's report, which can be found here:

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00391.pdf

Mississippi is one of 3 states that does not impute income.

I can't find anything in the state statutes saying that they don't impute income, nor can I find anything in the state statutes saying that they do.

It's common freaking sense. In this state, a NCP can voluntarily not work, and they don't have to! The state lets them get away with it! This has to change. It is not fair to CP or the children.

So I guess I am now on a crusade to find a way to get a judge to order "fair" child support from a NCP who doesn't work by her own choice, but could.

And I'm starting to confuse myself.

 

[2Mistakes]

This is the section in 43-19-103 that I think pertains to your situation:

(i) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result
which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.

****

Having Mom not be responsible for ANY support of the children or for reduced amount that's not based on a true income is not equitable . She has the education and training to work for a decent wage and had been employed in that capacity before you split right? Or some time in the recent past anyway.

Yes! While we were married, her income was the following. (And this is as far back as I can go, b/c I don't have copies of tax returns previous to this.)

2003 - Gross income: $37,475
2004 - Gross income: $39,348

Now, 2005 gets tricky because of Hurricane Katrina. In 2003, 2004, and part of 2005, she worked at a casino as a floor supervisor. From January 2005 - August 2005, she made $27,536. Katrina hit in August 2005, and we all lost our jobs because the casinos were destroyed.

She went to work for a temp. catastrophe co. adjusting flood claims, which is how she got into the adjuster field. Her rate of pay at that co. was $385 PER DAY/7 DAYS PER WEEK! She did this until April 2006.

(And yes, I know these amounts are correct. I worked for the same co. from 8/2005 - 12/2005 and was being paid the same.)

So, her gross income for 2005 would be the $27,536 she made at the casino pre-Katrina plus roughly $46,200 she made at the temp co. post-Katrina, for a total of $73,736.

Then in 2006, she worked for the temp co. from Jan. through April, at which time she quit. She met her bf, who also worked there and decided to move to S. FL with him. She started taking classes to get her adjuster's license, and did in fact get her adjuster's license, but I guess it's easier to live off your rich bf while your kids' suffer.

Anyways, her gross income for 2006 would have been roughly $46,000. She has not worked since April 2006.

Can I get this before a judge to show that she has plenty of money-making ability, but chooses not to? Will it even matter since it appears that MS doesn't impute an income?

Or, can the judge use that clause in 43-19-103 to say to her, "I don't care if you choose not to work, but you are going to adequately support your kids." and order a higher amount?

 

[2Mistakes]

I think I may have found some case law to help me. Looking for opinions.

This is cited in a Mississippi Supreme Court decision:

In order to obtain a modification of child support, the party seeking the change must prove
there is a “substantial and material change in the circumstances of one of the interested parties arising subsequent to” the original decree. McEwen v. McEwen, 631 So. 2d 821, 823 (Miss. 1994) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 594 So. 2d 620, 623 (Miss. 1992)). The Mississippi Supreme Court has articulated several factors which may be examined to determine whether a material change in circumstance has occurred, including “(1) increased needs of children due to advanced age and maturity, (2) increase in expenses, (3) inflation, (4) relative financial condition and earning capacity
of the parties . . . .” McEachern, 605 So. 2d at 813.

Notice the bolded words. Earning capacity. What does that mean? I suppose I need to find the case it is citing, McEachern. But not having any luck so far with finding that actual case.

 

[2Mistakes]

I think I have been looking at this the wrong way.

I found this cited in a case:

Where income tends to fluctuate, a chancellor may use income averaging to calculate
applicable child support. In Burge v. Burge, 851 So.2d 384 (¶5-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), we upheld the use of averages for fluctuating income as acceptable.

In the case this was cited in, they averaged 3 years income.

So, I'm thinking I should petition the court for an upward modification based on the increased expenses of the children due to their ages, as well as other factors listed in the statute, and ask the court to determine my ex's AGI by averaging her last 3 years income because her income fluctuates.

That would mean we would use 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Well, I know that she made approx. $73,736, and that her 2006 income was spprox. $46,000.

Now, for 2007, she says she made 0, but she did tell me that she is filing a 2007 tax return and is claiming 1 of the kids, so she must have made SOMETHING.

But that's ok, we'll base this on the premise that she made nothing in 2007.

So, $73,736 + $46,000 + $0 = $119,736/3 = an average yearly income of $39,912/12 = a gross monthly income of $3326.

Now, lets say that after her allowable deductions for taxes, etc., her AGI would be $2,926.

Based upon that, her CS obligation would be about $644.

Do I sound like I'm even getting close to tangible legal argument, or do I sound nuts?