Is the Judge Allowed to Impose a Wage on Me That Im Not Making

[jstang209]

My question involves child support in the State of: CA

I had to quit my job for personal reasons. In feb I tried to modify my CS amount and the judge lowered it to what I would be making on unemployment if I qualified for it. The judge said we would come back in 3 months which was today to readjust it. I have been working under the table at an autoshop and I told the judge I didnt have any paystubs. I told her I was working for 10/hour 25 hrs aweek plus going to school full time. They recalculated it and it was only 50 less then what I already pay. My childs mother said she didnt believe I only worked that much and she assumed I made more. So the judge calculated it at 40 hours a week and order me to pay that amount which was double than what I was recently paying.

My question is can the judge lawfully impose this 10/hr 40hr/week income on me when thats nowhere near what I am bringing home?

[Dogmatique]

That's not only allowable, it's very common when a parent is voluntarily under- or unemployed.

You've been imputed 40 hours at what you're earning part-time which is absolutely normal procedure.

[PQN]

Yes, he can. You chose to quit and you are currently choosing to attend school. When you have a child, your #1 responsibility is to support that child.

[jstang209]

How is this normal or fair? Do any lawyers or guru's know what section of the family code I can look at that better explain this?

[Dogmatique]

Just read around the forums. It's common knowledge and common practice.

It is presumed that if you can work 25 hours @ $X, you can work 40 hours @ $X.

Think about it - if child support was only ever calculated on ACTUAL earnings (versus what the parent is capable of earning), we'd have thousands - nay millions - of people giving up their jobs to avoid paying CS.

You can read this (which is likely more reader-friendly than the actual family code.)

You're also looking at it somewhat reversed. A judge can deviate and/or impute an income simply because there's no law saying that s/he cannot do so.

The judge might ask you, "Does your child need to eat less simply because you're not working/are only working part time?"

[PQN]

It is normal and fair because you are expected to remain employed at a full time level so that your child can eat, have medical care, a place to live, etc.

Start reading on the bottom half of page 19... http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg201.pdf

[Mr. Knowitall]

One of the risks you take when you choose to work "under the table", rather than documenting your hours and wages, is that people will be skeptical of your claims of how much you are making at your job. It's not just this court that can infer that you are working 40 hours - the IRS could take a similar position if it decides to go after your employer or you for the taxes you're not paying on your income.