Mo imputing income, fyi

[CJane]

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

Just thought I'd post an FYI in case someone actually does a search some day.

If CSE is modifying a case and determines that one parent is willfully un/der employed, they will assess that parent's skills and professional abilities and then impute an income based on the DoL statistics for that profession in a specific area.

So, as a for example, if they determined that I was un/deremployed, they would pull up purchasers in MO and determine that I "could" be making between $30 and $50K/year and assess my income at somewhere between those two.

Also, something to think about... a higher or lower income doesn't make THAT much difference in the end. I just ran the numbers leaving CP's income and health insurance/day care costs the same and increasing only the NCP's income from $35K - 65K/ year and the increase in that span was only about $260/month. That's right. Less than $300/month difference between an income of $35K/year and $65K/year.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I know we can say it here, but will anyone listen?

 

[meanyjack]

Also, something to think about... a higher or lower income doesn't make THAT much difference in the end. I just ran the numbers leaving CP's income and health insurance/day care costs the same and increasing only the NCP's income from $35K - 65K/ year and the increase in that span was only about $260/month. That's right. Less than $300/month difference between an income of $35K/year and $65K/year.

Only??!?!
That's just over $3100 difference over 12 mos.
To most people, that amount is significant.

 

[Zephyr]

Only??!?!
That's just over $3100 difference over 12 mos.
To most people, that amount is significant.

BUT- it's a 30k jump in income, at $3100 for the year- that's not near the 17% or 20% or whatever

 

[hotrodbaby21]

But, does this rule/law apply to a parent that was laid off and is receiving unemployment and is diligently looking for work. Even if they could be hired flipping burgers, the pay is nowhere near what they are used to being paid? Could they turn down work if that was the case?

I apologize if I am hi-jacking but you present a very good subject.

 

[CJane]

BUT- it's a 30k jump in income, at $3100 for the year- that's not near the 17% or 20% or whatever

Exactly.

This is why MO will not modify an order outside a 3 year window unless the income of one of the parties has changed by more than 50% (up or down) and is anticipated to stay that way for more than 12 months. And EVEN THEN, the obligation has to change by more than 20% for the order to be implemented.

SO, using the $35000/year example, in order to even make it worth it to the state to modify the order, my income would have to increase to $52,500 (assuming static income on the part of the other parent) AND the child support that I pay would have to increase from $237 to $284. Reality is that it would really go to about $426 with that increase in income.

So, I'd be making 17,500/year more (1458 more per month) and I'd be paying $142/month in support.

I'm not thinking that's a hardship.

Again, a significant increase in income does NOT necessarily parlay into a significant increase in child support.

 

[CJane]

But, does this rule/law apply to a parent that was laid off and is receiving unemployment and is diligently looking for work. Even if they could be hired flipping burgers, the pay is nowhere near what they are used to being paid?

If their income has decreased by more than 50% and will likely STAY that way for more than a year, they should file for a modification in CS. But they should NOT expect it to go down significantly... and arrears that have already accumulated will not be forgiven.

Could they turn down work if that was the case?

This is a different issue. If I remember correctly, when one is on unemployment, one cannot turn down work.

 

[hotrodbaby21]

Well maybe not necessarily "turn down work" but more like just refuse to apply to a job that pays below the standard of income that they are capable of.

 

[hotrodbaby21]

And there are no arrears. child support automatically takes out a huge chunk of unemployment

 

[CJane]

Well maybe not necessarily "turn down work" but more like just refuse to apply to a job that pays below the standard of income that they are capable of.

Well, here's my thought on that as a person who's been unemployed... eventually, unemployment runs out. And it's ALWAYS easier to find a job when you HAVE a job.

So if a job will pay more than unemployment does, you take it. Even if it's a crappy job, and then you keep looking for something else/better.

 

[hotrodbaby21]

Exactly what I think, but in this case unemployment pays better, so to speak, than Mickey D's.

 

[meanyjack]

Exactly what I think, but in this case unemployment pays better, so to speak, than Mickey D's.

That is IF you can even find a job at McD's. I know many of us on here say "go get a job flipping burgers" but even those jobs are scarce nowadays.

 

[TheGeekess]

That is IF you can even find a job at McD's. I know many of us on here say "go get a job flipping burgers" but even those jobs are scarce nowadays.

Depends on what part of the country you're in.... I've seen several signs outside the FF restaurants looking for flippers (within the last 2 days). And a local Cracker Barrel was hiring a month or so ago (placed a sign outside the establishment). I'm also aware of several new franchises opening locally. The jobs are there; you've just got to stay on top of things.

 

[frylover]

OK, I totally understand where you guys are coming from in terms of the calculator and how a higher salary doesn't necessarily mean a huge jump in support....

BUT if anyone out there doesn't want that "only $260 a month increase " PLEASE send it to me!!!! That'll cover two months of lunch money each for two kids, one field trip to the zoo and insectarium and a couple of emergency trips to Mickey D's!

 

[CJane]

OK, I totally understand where you guys are coming from in terms of the calculator and how a higher salary doesn't necessarily mean a huge jump in support....

BUT if anyone out there doesn't want that "only $260 a month increase " PLEASE send it to me!!!! That'll cover two months of lunch money each for two kids, one field trip to the zoo and insectarium and a couple of emergency trips to Mickey D's!

Heh. It'd pay off my car in 6 months.

However... the point still stands. Picture this scenario... CS is going to increase a significant amount. So NCP files a request for hearing. Hires an attorney to fight the CS amount, claiming income is not as high as CSE has determined it is. Hearing takes 6 months to even take place. Then the decision isn't rendered for another 4 or 5 months. NCP "wins" and CSE says "Ok, you're right. You make $20K less than we thought. CS will be $200 less/month than we previously believed."

However, that order is backdated nearly a year and NCP is $5000 or so in arrears, with an order that is still significantly more than previously ordered AND an attorney who wants paid.

I just can't see how that works out in a risk/benefit analysis.

Plus, people are hanging out on this board with some regularity saying "I KNOW s/he makes AT LEAST $10K more a year than they're claiming!"

So what? That $10K MIGHT work out to $30 more/month. MAYBE.

It's just asinine.