My Ex- Won't Get a Job

[mmmagique]

Well this time I'm going to have to side with the OP and Fatherwhowon. I don't believe she just wanted a question of morality answered. I believe she wants to know what the probable outcome will be should she take dad back to court.

While we can't know that, we can speculate, that, as in many cases, the court *may* impute a wage to him that is similar to what he has earned in the past. Especially if mom has proof of him telling her he would never go back to work. Personally OP, I would take the chance. You don't have much to lose anyway. If you ever have to, you can get by without support, but you won't have to. You may just have a little bit less. (but I doubt it)

[FatherWhoWon]

Mom and dad can provide for their son in any way they see fit. Period.

Huh? What does this even mean? Mom and dad obviously have a disagreement about providing for the children. So no, they don't get to decide individually for themselves. That's why there are judges to decide for them. And mom here wants to possibly bring this matter back to the judge and wants to know how, if she can, to make her case. But it would seem mom is scared off at this point anyway.

[Antigone]

Huh? What does this even mean? Mom and dad obviously have a disagreement about providing for the children. So no, they don't get to decide individually for themselves. That's why there are judges to decide for them. And mom here wants to possibly bring this matter back to the judge and wants to know how, if she can, to make her case. But it would seem mom is scared off at this point anyway.

EA is talking about Dad's mommy and daddy (this is how the OP referred to dad's parents)

M - OP is miffed about the fact that Dad's parents support him, legally it is a non-issue. The issue is dad's earning capacity and any income that can be imputed to him. Betcha dollars to donuts that if he is imputed a child support amount, his "mommy and daddy" will pay it for him, and the the OP will huff and puff that "HE" isn't paying the support.

[FatherWhoWon]

Thanks for the clarification. I really don't think anyone was trying to dispute that.

The issue is dad's earning capacity and any income that can be imputed to him.

Indeed, and this was the main point of the legal options discussion, not contributed to as yet by yourself.

Betcha dollars to donuts that if he is imputed a child support amount, his "mommy and daddy" will pay it for him, and the the OP will huff and puff that "HE" isn't paying the support.

Since mom hasn't actually done that yet, nor given indication that she will, it seems more prudent to me to actually try to give her legal advice rather than judgment over a speculation of what you think she will do in the future. Not to mention, that has no legal relevance even if she does that anyway, since you seem so stuck on what is or is not a legal issue.

[mscoby]

Does income just count as a job or does the court include the gifts he is receiving as income. His parents gave him over 300,000 to pay off the house and buy a $56,000 car.

[mmmagique]

I don't know the legal answer to that. (hopefully someone else here will) but I would think if he has to declare it on his taxes (and with that much he will) it will be considered income.

[EA1070a]

No, this won't be considered income for purposes of calculating child support. Only one casein Illinois has sound that monetary gifts from parents are income (Rogers v Rogers) and that case was significantly different. In that case, the ex-husband's parents gave a monetary gift to their son in excess of 40k each and every year of his adult life.

You aren't going to benefit from this with an increase in support.

Whether or not he has to declare these gifts with the IRS is a question for a tax attorney or an accountant to decide based on ow the money was transferred to him, and is outside the scope of your concern.

- - - Updated - - -

Since mom hasn't actually done that yet, nor given indication that she will, it seems more prudent to me to actually try to give her legal advice rather than judgment over a speculation of what you think she will do in the future. Not to mention, that has no legal relevance even if she does that anyway, since you seem so stuck on what is or is not a legal issue.

Mhmm. Oh, it's coming. Maybe OP won't complain about it here, but the inference is thinly veiled in the tone of the posts.

If the ex is still eligible for and receiving UI and the Court has already reduced support based on the fact that he was laid off, very little is likely to change until he is no longer eligible for UI. At that point she can file a request for modification based on imputed income, but once someone is out of the job market for a long period of time, their earning power is generally significantly decreased.

[gam]

No, this won't be considered income for purposes of calculating child support. Only one casein Illinois has sound that monetary gifts from parents are income (Rogers v Rogers) and that case was significantly different. In that case, the ex-husband's parents gave a monetary gift to their son in excess of 40k each and every year of his adult life.

You aren't going to benefit from this with an increase in support.

Whether or not he has to declare these gifts with the IRS is a question for a tax attorney or an accountant to decide based on ow the money was transferred to him, and is outside the scope of your concern.

- - - Updated - - -


Mhmm. Oh, it's coming. Maybe OP won't complain about it here, but the inference is thinly veiled in the tone of the posts.

If the ex is still eligible for and receiving UI and the Court has already reduced support based on the fact that he was laid off, very little is likely to change until he is no longer eligible for UI. At that point she can file a request for modification based on imputed income, but once someone is out of the job market for a long period of time, their earning power is generally significantly decreased.

Sure it's moms concern, it's every taxpayer in our country's concern if dad and his parents are cheating the IRS. If I knew them, I would turn their butts in without blinking an eye. Ya know the IRS has a whistleblower program where they actually give you a percentage they recover for turning them in. You can also not go through the whistleblower program and remain anonymous. The more the cheaters out there, the more it keeps costing the rest of us.

So what if she gripes about it. Dad is sitting on his butt, not looking for work, saying he is never going back to work and mom is bearing the brunt of the cost of raising the children.

I don't get why one can't gripe cause their ex is acting like a first class idiot. Ya get your gripes out, discuss them with people, blow off steam, see what you can do if you can even do anything and your not blowing at the first class idiot.

He's been out of the job market because he wanted to be, and many Judges do not look kindly on that and will impute him with what he was earning when he left his job. Specially if mom can provide the court with proof that he is not going to go back to work and that he is living off his parents. He has not mortgage, no car payment, while that can't be in the child support calculations, it can sway a Judge to impute him with exactly what he was making before he decided to be unemployed for good.

[EA1070a]

You're joking, right? I highly doubt that OP has any clue how that money was transferred to her ex. If you knew the first thing about Estate Planning you'd know that there are numerous ways to transfer money via a good, solid Estate Plan that in no way, shape or form "cheats" the IRS. Do you know anything at all about taxation, gift taxes (paid by the donor, not the recipient), and maximum lifetime gift exclusions?

OP is pissed off that her ex's parents paid off his house. Based on his parent's wealth, I have no doubt that it was handled by professionals.

The gift tax is perhaps the most misunderstood of all taxes. When it comes into play, this tax is owed by the giver of the gift, not the recipient.

OP is claiming her ex is out of the job market by choice, but if he's receiving UI, he has to demonstrate that he's actually looking for employment.

Child support in Illinois is based purely on a percentage of income. The fact that he no longer carries a mortgage is irrelevant. Take a look at the support calculator. The Court already modified support in dad's favor. OP can seek a modification and ask the court to impute wages, but unless she can prove his parents are supporting him in a way that is consistent with the ruling in Rogers, and that does not seem to be the case here, she'll have one hell of a time arguing that paying off his house and buying him a car should be counted as income.

And unless dad was dumb enough to state in writing that he has no intention of ever working again, she'll have a hell of a time proving he ever said it.

[FatherWhoWon]

OP is claiming her ex is out of the job market by choice, but if he's receiving UI, he has to demonstrate that he's actually looking for employment.

The burden of proof for this isn't very high. It really doesn't mean anything.

Don't know about the irs one way or the other, but otherwise I.think gam is spot on.