ExpertLaw.com Forums

Interpreting Language from Child Support Law

Printable View

  • 04-04-2019, 01:14 AM
    Heartsick123
    Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    My question involves a child custody case from the State of: NH

    This is a quote taken from Nh's RSA 458-C:2 IV. (b) "The income of either parent's current spouse shall not be considered as gross income to the parent unless the parent resigns from or refuses employment or is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, in which case the income of the spouse shall be imputed to the parent to the extent that the parent had earned income in his or her usual employment."

    Does the last part "...to the extent that the parent had earned income in his or her usual employment." mean that if that person didn't work because they have a child and they stay home that their spouses income would not imputed to them? As in the parent has no "usual" employment? The wording is a little tricky to me.

    Example:
    Two people divorce with one child age 4. Mother did not work since child was born. Child lives with mom Monday-Thursday nights and dad Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Dad pays child support to mother (this is her only income for 4 years). Both parents remarry. Mother has another baby with new husband. Circumstances of custody change and child now age 8 lives with dad during the week and mom on weekends. Mother still doesn't work because she has a 1 year old baby with new husband. Does the law impute her husbands income for child support purposes, or not? She is obviously voluntarily unemployed, but the last part of that sentece about usual income makes the law murky to me.

    BTW, this is just me trying to understand the language of the law and how it is applied. Thanks in advance.
  • 04-04-2019, 01:37 AM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    Quote:

    Quoting Heartsick123
    View Post
    My question involves a child custody case from the State of: NH

    This is a quote taken from Nh's RSA 458-C:2 IV. (b) "The income of either parent's current spouse shall not be considered as gross income to the parent unless the parent resigns from or refuses employment or is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, in which case the income of the spouse shall be imputed to the parent to the extent that the parent had earned income in his or her usual employment."

    Does the last part "...to the extent that the parent had earned income in his or her usual employment." mean that if that person didn't work because they have a child and they stay home that their spouses income would not imputed to them?

    No. It is a limitation on the amount of income that will be imputed. Let's say that Art and Becky are the parents of Cindy. Becky is the custodial parent of Becky and has sued Art to contribute child support. Art is skilled as an auto mechanic and was making $60,000/year working for an auto repair shop. Art is married to Denise, a doctor who makes $250,000/year. Art is angry at Becky and swears that she'll not get a dime from him (not withstanding that the support is for the benefit of Cindy, his child) and becomes voluntarily unemployed thinking that with no income of his own that he cannot be tagged with child support. Under the NH statute Denise's income will be imputed to Art, but the language you asked about only imputes that income to the extent of the income Art had been making at his work. In other words, it won't impute all of Denise's $250,000 to Art to determine his obligation; it will instead just impute to him $60,000 of her income to determine what support will be paid.
  • 04-04-2019, 10:32 AM
    LockeLove
    Re: Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    I think that @Taxing Matters hit it right on the head (from my reading of the statute).

    It also works when you "Voluntarily Underemploy" yourself and take a job that pays significantly less than what you were making before for the purpose of paying less child support.

    Same scenario, but Art takes a job as a checkout clerk at a local grocery store making $12,000 (from his ability to make $60,000) just so that the does not have to pay Becky the entire amount of Child Support. It seems that New Hampshire law will allow the system to ding Denise the remaining $48,000 to make up for the loss of income of Art.
  • 04-07-2019, 05:27 AM
    Heartsick123
    Re: Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    Oh okay, that makes sense. Thanks. But in my scenario, mom doesn't work and hasn't for 8 years. Would they then impute all of her husbands income, none of it, or look at the last job she held 8 years ago? Tricky! Maybe minimum wage?
  • 04-07-2019, 05:48 AM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    Quote:

    Quoting Heartsick123
    View Post
    Oh okay, that makes sense. Thanks. But in my scenario, mom doesn't work and hasn't for 8 years. Would they then impute all of her husbands income, none of it, or look at the last job she held 8 years ago? Tricky! Maybe minimum wage?

    The court would likely look at what she could make with the skills she has, especially if those are specialized skills. A lot matters why the mother doesn't work, the current custody/visitation arrangements, and what the history has been for the last eight years.
  • 04-07-2019, 05:55 AM
    llworking
    Re: Interpreting Language from Child Support Law
    Quote:

    Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The court would likely look at what she could make with the skills she has, especially if those are specialized skills. A lot matters why the mother doesn't work, the current custody/visitation arrangements, and what the history has been for the last eight years.

    I agree, but the minimum would be 40 hours at minimum wage.
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved