Imputed Income for Custodial Parent

[0racle]

My question involves child support in the State of: Oregon

I am trying to find information on imputing income on the custodial parent (lots of information on imputing the paying parent...)

My children are both over 18 and attending school. They qualify to receive support through their 21st birthday, so long as they keep in good academic standing and are enrolled at least half time. Our current support order is one lump sum so when the older child turns 21, support won't go down automatically; the order will have to be modified. I'm considering a stipulated modification now to specify an amount per child so we can avoid a full review next year.

My ex does not work and has no verifiable income. He was imputed at his last salary when our order was entered but I don't know that he'd stipulate to the same imputed income again. He's capable of working, but has apparently given up.

One article I found on an Oregon Lawyer's site says: "If one parent is unemployed or employed less than full-time, Oregon courts then look at "imputed" or "potential" income for that parent, unless they can prove that there is good cause for the underemployment. Good cause might be a shortage of jobs in the parent's field or if they are going to school. If there is no good cause, the court determines the underemployed parent's imputed income by calculating either (1) probable earnings based upon the parent's recent work history, occupational qualifications, prevailing job opportunities and earning levels in the community; or (2) income from full-time work (40 hours per week) at the current Oregon minimum wage. The larger number is that parent's imputed income."

This suggests that he may not be imputed at minimum wage but I'm just not sure. Maybe it all depends on the judge?

Does anyone have experience with imputed income; specifically for the custodial parent?

Thank you!

[Dogmatique]

I have a quick question. You said they "qualify" - but is it actually CURRENTLY ordered?

[0racle]

Yes - there is a current order that specifies support shall continue until age 21, so long as they qualify as a child attending school. In Oregon, once the child turns 18, they have to turn in paperwork informing child support and the obliging parent where they intend on going to school after they graduate from high school. Then within 30 days of beginning college, they have to release enrollment information to the obliging parent. It's really up to the obliging parent to 'police' things after 18.

[Dogmatique]

Okay, that's good. (You'd be amazed at how many parents "think" that they automatically get child support post-18, but haven't actually had the order modified or even requested this)

It does sometimes come down to the individual judge. Some areas will follow a certain trend (imputing min. wage versus "potential" wage), and other areas will do their own thing. It might be worth talking to a local attorney who will know your local climate, and how the judge/s tend to rule.

[0racle]

Thanks. That's kind of how it's sounding here; that there is no definitive answer.

If I wanted to be a stinker about this - I could petition to have support terminated for both kids now. One thing that disqualifies them after 18 is if they have a job that pays them more than half of their support. I don't want to do that. At the same time, I don't want to 'reward' their dad for remaining unemployed (the kids transfer all their support money to him.)

[Dogmatique]

All of "their" support money?

Why is it going to them at all? THAT certainly isn't standard procedure.

[0racle]

Yes - it is standard procedure in Oregon upon the child's 18th birthday. 107.108 Support or maintenance for child attending school; rules. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Child attending school” means a child of the parties who:
(A) Is unmarried;
(B) Is 18 years of age or older and under 21 years of age;
(C) Is making satisfactory academic progress as defined by the school that the child attends; and
(D) Has a course load that is no less than one-half of the load that is determined by the school to constitute full-time enrollment.
(5)(a) If a support order provides for the support or maintenance of a child attending school and the child qualifies as a child attending school, unless good cause is found for the distribution of the payment to be made in some other manner, support shall be distributed to the child if services are being provided under ORS 25.080 or shall be paid directly to the child if those services are not being provided.

Also - found this on oregonchildsupport.gov's site about "potential" income

"Potential Income" means the greater of:
(a) The parent’s probable full-time earnings level based on employment potential,
relevant work history, and occupational qualifications in light of prevailing job
opportunities and earnings levels in the community; or
(b) The amount of income a parent could earn working full-time at the current state
minimum wage.
(6) Income is presumed to be the amount determined as potential income in the
following scenarios:
(a) An unemployed parent;
...
(d) A parent with no direct evidence of any income
http://oregonchildsupport.gov/laws/rules/050_0715.pdf

I'm certainly going to fight on this 'rule' !

[rracerxx]

If I wanted to be a stinker about this - I could petition to have support terminated for both kids now. One thing that disqualifies them after 18 is if they have a job that pays them more than half of their support.

Can you give more information regarding the childs employment and how it relates to the child attending school requirements. I attempted to locate the information you stated above but have not been able to find this information. Thanks for any additional information on this.

[0racle]

Actually - I'm having a hard time finding it myself. I was told this by my attorney in 2008 but I'm wondering if it was modified.

It's interesting to note that for a minor child, once they become self-supporting, married or join the military, child support stops. However, for a child 18 - 21 who qualifies as a child attending school, the 'self-supporting' aspect seems to fall away from the disqualifiers. According to the Child Attending School Team, there is no limit to the earnings a child can make.

There are a number of checks in place to maintain support after a child is 18 but it falls upon the obliging parent to police and enforce that the child keeps up with the requirements. Thus, we're continually the bad guy

If I find anything that supports my earlier remark about earning half of their support disqualifying them, I'll be sure to update here.

UPDATE: I found this thread on another site. This basically says what I said above. 'Emancipation' (with respect to self-support) only applies to minors (under 18). For a child attending school 18-21, 'emancipation' does not apply!

http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questio...ng-434381812/a

[rracerxx]

Thank you oracle for your assistance with this. The terrible part to all of this is the way the states employees talk to you as a worthless piece of trash. Maybe you can help me out or know a little bit about this, I think I need to speak with an attorney since this is fugly.
The boy graduated in June, I had not received anything from either of them regarding plans to continue college so I naturally objected once he graduated. Of course I received a rebuttal and it should continue since he or she has stated that he plans to attend a community college in the state of Ca. Here is where it gets interesting, from my reading 107.108 states that the child needs to have intent to continue school but also states that he must supply enrollment verification, grades, and classes for it to be continued. The woman from the CAS division states that all the child needs is intent and once the classes start he has 30 days to supply me with the written consent for disclosure. This does not sound right to me at all. Also the form she had the high school fill out 2/8/12 was photocopied and submitted to CAS enforcement on 7/3/12 with a couple of dates changed.

Here are a couple question
1) can they allow support to continue even though he isn't enrolled in any school? CAS is saying that he is on hes summer break and doesn't need to be enrolled until the start of the academic year.
2) I plan on reporting the use of fraudulent documents to the DA's office that resides over the case, has she broken the law to the degree I think she has?
3) If the other 2 questions result with a continuance of support and he does in fact move to a different state and qualifies for in state tuition can I petition the state of Oregon to have the case dismissed since he no longer lives in the state?