Potential income

[sprocket454]

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

My wife and I are about to file for divorce. She has a lawyer but I represent myself. This has actually worked quite well and I have final documents from hr lawyer to look over and sign. This is the second time for these documents. The first time I suggested a few changes, all of which were agreed upon except child support. This is the only thing I don't believe is correct.

My wife works as a resident service aide in an assisted living facility. The individual employee's work schedules are flexible at the time of employment. It depends on what hours and shifts need to be filled and on what days. Between the personnel dept and the new employee they can work out a schedule that fills the needs of both the employer and the employee. The employee could also request a change to their work schedule at some point and the personnel dept may or may not agree to it.

My wife works 36hrs per week. Actually she works 32hrs one week and 40hrs the next. This is considered full time by her employer as far as qualifying for full time benefits. It is the lowest number of hours possible that would qualify.

The MN child support guidelines have a section for "potential income", What it means is that if a person who is to receive child support is willfully underemployed then their potential income will be calculated based on a 40hr work week. It does however make exceptions if the person works in an industry where a standard full time work week is typically more or less than 40 hrs.

I argue that my wife is willfully underemployed. She could go into personnel tomorrow and fill that missing shift to bring her to 40hrs. They are always short staffed and have shifts to fill and that is very typical of her industry. She simply doesn't want to work another day. She doesn't want her income to increase to the point where she won't qualify for her income based housing that she has had since she moved out of our house.

Her lawyer argues that since her employer considers her a full time worker, the 40hr requirement is waved and doesn't apply. I would argue that my employer would still consider me full time if I requested that I wanted to only work 36 hours. In fact we have a couple of guys who do just that. But it is NOT standard and it is NOT the industry standard. It is simply enough hrs to qualify for full time benefits.

My question is, who is interpreting the law correctly? Her lawyer or myself? Should my wife have to include potential income? Is she willfully underemployed?

Thanks!

 

[justalayman]

is that the schedule she worked while living with you? If so since she has not changed anything and you were quite happy with her "full time" job where she averaged 36 hours per week, I suspect you will lose the argument.



but the question to ask is; is 4 hours more per week really going to make that much difference in a child support calculation?

She simply doesn't want to work another day. She doesn't want her income to increase to the point where she won't qualify for her income based housing that she has had since she moved out of our house.

and if it does make much difference in the child support calculation, is it worth causing her a hardship that would your children would be subjected to as well? Do you not see a benefit in her having that extra day off and the children with a parent that extra day rather than with a daycare provider (and are you liable for daycare costs in any way?). Where will she live if she is disqualified for her current housing? Would it be a better or worse place for the children?

 

[CJane]

but the question to ask is; is 4 hours more per week really going to make that much difference in a child support calculation?

This. I really really really wish more people would do a realistic cost/benefit analysis before deciding to fight over stuff.

 

[LdiJ]

This. I really really really wish more people would do a realistic cost/benefit analysis before deciding to fight over stuff.

I agree. We are talking about 16 hours a month. She is working as a residential service aide in an assisted living facility. I would be very surprised if she is making more than 9-11 dollars an hour...so, for that 16 hours we are talking about somewhere around 150.00 to 200.00 a month in additional income...plus potential extra daycare costs...plus the potential loss on income assisted housing. Therefore the effect of that on a child support calculation is so small that its almost ridiculous.

Sprocket, have you actually plugged that difference into a child support calculator for MI to see how much of a difference that actually makes? Are you really willing to fight over something that might mean only a few dollars a month?

There is also the possibility that you might be ordered to cover some of mom's legal costs if you push a potentially trivial issue.

 

[justalayman]

Sprocket, have you actually plugged that difference into a child support calculator for MI to see how much of a difference that actually makes? Are you really willing to fight over something that might mean only a few dollars a month?
.

Probably not. It probably wouldn't due much good if he had

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

 

[sprocket454]

Thanks for the responses.

Yes, of course I plugged the numbers into a child support calculator. Since I am representing myself that is the only way I could state what I think I should be paying for child support. My wife actually makes $16.61 per hr and the difference in child support when including potential income is $75 per month. That is a significant amount to me. It is not worth a legal battle over, but it is worth me trying to get clarification of the state statute to back up my position. One of us is interpreting the statute correctly.

The MN calculator makes it very easy to calculate because it is simply a matter of filling in the boxes and one of the boxes is for potential income. I did not let feelings enter into this, I simply clicked on the "help" for potential income to find out if either of us had any. My conclusion after reading through the State Statute was that my wife has potential income of $289 per month. I therefore put that into the calculator.

I do not expect her to work another 8 hrs. That is her choice. There are no day care costs either way but I do see the benefits of the kids getting 16 extra hrs with her per month. The situation could just as easily be reversed. I could drop to36 hrs per week, she could increase to 40 and the kids would get extra time with me instead of her. I would still be considered full time by my employer, but it would NOT be the industry standard.

But see, even the above paragraph is getting off track. This is a LEGAL question and revolves around what the state statute actually means. I know the intent of the statute is to say that if one of the parties is willfully underemployed, the other party is not obligated to pay for that underemployment in child support.

Maybe a better question is this: Is there someone I can call who can clarify the intent of the statute? Surely this has come up hundreds of times before. Someone knows the answer and can give it to me. I haven't yet been able to figure out who to contact.

 

[CJane]

Honestly, this is one of those things that would ultimately be determined by judicial discretion. If she's considered full time by her employer, and it's not a position that is seriously beneath her education/experience, then it's unlikely that a judge is going to consider that a few more hours/month should be figured into the CS calculations.

 

[TheGeekess]

Honestly, this is one of those things that would ultimately be determined by judicial discretion. If she's considered full time by her employer, and it's not a position that is seriously beneath her education/experience, then it's unlikely that a judge is going to consider that a few more hours/month should be figured into the CS calculations.

72 hrs every two weeks is pretty standard in the healthcare field in 'Bama.

 

[Silverplum]

Thanks for the responses.

Yes, of course I plugged the numbers into a child support calculator. Since I am representing myself that is the only way I could state what I think I should be paying for child support. My wife actually makes $16.61 per hr and the difference in child support when including potential income is $75 per month. That is a significant amount to me. It is not worth a legal battle over, but it is worth me trying to get clarification of the state statute to back up my position. One of us is interpreting the statute correctly.

The MN calculator makes it very easy to calculate because it is simply a matter of filling in the boxes and one of the boxes is for potential income. I did not let feelings enter into this, I simply clicked on the "help" for potential income to find out if either of us had any. My conclusion after reading through the State Statute was that my wife has potential income of $289 per month. I therefore put that into the calculator.

I do not expect her to work another 8 hrs. That is her choice. There are no day care costs either way but I do see the benefits of the kids getting 16 extra hrs with her per month. The situation could just as easily be reversed. I could drop to36 hrs per week, she could increase to 40 and the kids would get extra time with me instead of her. I would still be considered full time by my employer, but it would NOT be the industry standard.

But see, even the above paragraph is getting off track. This is a LEGAL question and revolves around what the state statute actually means. I know the intent of the statute is to say that if one of the parties is willfully underemployed, the other party is not obligated to pay for that underemployment in child support.

Maybe a better question is this: Is there someone I can call who can clarify the intent of the statute? Surely this has come up hundreds of times before. Someone knows the answer and can give it to me. I haven't yet been able to figure out who to contact.

RE the bolded: your attorney. Then your judge will make the determination, but you absolutely may not call the judge.

 

[justalayman]

But see, even the above paragraph is getting off track. This is a LEGAL question and revolves around what the state statute actually means. .

when it comes to family court issues, the LEGAL answer isn't always the best answer. You can force the other party to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean that is in the best interest of the children to do them and above all else, that is where your decisions should come from.

 

[Proserpina]

OP,

Please take this in the manner in which it was intended.

You are going to have a truly miserable however-many-years if this is how you intend to deal with anything loosely related to parenting. I imagine most judges would roll their eyes and slap your wrist each time that you try to nickel-and-dime the other parent - and whether you intend to or not, that's essentially what you're doing.

There are times when fighting for something is the right thing to do for the child. And there are times when it's nothing more than an exercise in "Nya nya nya I'm gonna get my way"-ism and the child doesn't benefit at all.

The choice is yours.

 

[sprocket454]

72 hrs every two weeks is pretty standard in the healthcare field in 'Bama.

I did some more research and it is fairly common here too. So my question is now answered. Since 72 hrs could be considered an industry standard for full time, then my wife's lawyer has the child support calculated correctly and I will go with that.

Although there were many responses to this thread, this is really all I needed to know in order to accurately and legally calculate child support. I has nothing to do with feelings, nitpicking, parenting or anything else. It simply clarifies the MN statute and confirms that in my wife's field, 72 hrs is often full time.

Done deal. We're good to go with filing now.

 

[justalayman]

No it was always about you arguing over a couple dollars with no regard to how it affected your children

 

[stealth2]

At the end of the day, if these are the types of hours she typically worked when you were married, a judge may not consider her under employed. If, on top of that, those hours aere standard throughout her "industry", you've got nothing. Zip. Zero. Bupkis. However, If you *chose* to approach your employer to lower your hours, that WOULD be considered (voluntary) underemployment, and you'd likely be imputed your normal F/T income to calculate CS.

 

[CSO286]

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

My wife and I are about to file for divorce. She has a lawyer but I represent myself. This has actually worked quite well and I have final documents from hr lawyer to look over and sign. This is the second time for these documents. The first time I suggested a few changes, all of which were agreed upon except child support. This is the only thing I don't believe is correct.

My wife works as a resident service aide in an assisted living facility. The individual employee's work schedules are flexible at the time of employment. It depends on what hours and shifts need to be filled and on what days. Between the personnel dept and the new employee they can work out a schedule that fills the needs of both the employer and the employee. The employee could also request a change to their work schedule at some point and the personnel dept may or may not agree to it.

My wife works 36hrs per week. Actually she works 32hrs one week and 40hrs the next. This is considered full time by her employer as far as qualifying for full time benefits. It is the lowest number of hours possible that would qualify.

The MN child support guidelines have a section for "potential income", What it means is that if a person who is to receive child support is willfully underemployed then their potential income will be calculated based on a 40hr work week. It does however make exceptions if the person works in an industry where a standard full time work week is typically more or less than 40 hrs.

I argue that my wife is willfully underemployed. She could go into personnel tomorrow and fill that missing shift to bring her to 40hrs. They are always short staffed and have shifts to fill and that is very typical of her industry. She simply doesn't want to work another day. She doesn't want her income to increase to the point where she won't qualify for her income based housing that she has had since she moved out of our house.

Her lawyer argues that since her employer considers her a full time worker, the 40hr requirement is waved and doesn't apply. I would argue that my employer would still consider me full time if I requested that I wanted to only work 36 hours. In fact we have a couple of guys who do just that. But it is NOT standard and it is NOT the industry standard. It is simply enough hrs to qualify for full time benefits.

My question is, who is interpreting the law correctly? Her lawyer or myself? Should my wife have to include potential income? Is she willfully underemployed?

Thanks!

(I worked in MN child support until last year.)

If the employer considers her full time, then CSED will consider her full time for child support purposes and will not attempt to impute her potential income or deem her "willfully underemployed".

When the statute refers to "willful underemployment", they are mostly referring to, for example, a person trained and skilled as a welder (capable of working $40+/hr) working as a clerk in a shop to avoid paying child support based on what he or she is fully capable of earning.

Your wife is working in an industry where 72 hours is considered full time. The industry typically schedules that way intentionally, because then they don't have to pay overtime to the employee when they are called in to pick up a shift.

You aren't going to win arguing willful underemployment in MN. The magistrate is not going to see it the same way you do.