Hyphenation is reasonable, but I'd ask for a change completely and in the alternative hyphenation. But again, do not do this alone...HIRE AN ATTORNEY. QUICKLY. I'm not sure that in this case imputing income would be proper
Hyphenation is reasonable, but I'd ask for a change completely and in the alternative hyphenation. But again, do not do this alone...HIRE AN ATTORNEY. QUICKLY. I'm not sure that in this case imputing income would be proper
Florida can base CS on actual earnings, if they find that Dad left to further his education or otherwise is attempting to improve his circumstances. This isn't the case though, since he did that before he'd even met Mom.
He needs an attorney for sure.
Ah. Found it:
60.130 (b) Monthly income shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent if such unemployment or underemployment is found by the court to be voluntary on that parent’s part, absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control. In the event of such voluntary unemployment or underemployment, the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community if such information is available
does this matter?
I left that job to go to business school (5 months before I met her) and I decided not to pursue bschool when I found out she was pregnant so i could support what I thought to be was going to be our family. There are records of prep courses for the GMAT. Also applications that were filled out but never submitted.
Brutal honesty:
She has screwed you seventy five ways from Sunday. Yes, Yes, I know - you did have choices too. But that doesn't change the fact that yeah, you're getting screwed.
So. Get that attorney. She's got a very savvy attorney who has looked at the statutes and is going to try every which way to use Vazquez v. Vasquez, where the court did hold Dad to be underemployed.
Vazquez had basically ignored company policy to the point where he was fired. The court agreed. But that's not all the court said (unfortunately) and it's this part which is relevant to you:
(copy these factoids into a Word doc or something and hand them to your attorney)Further, the court found that only searching for comparable employment for six months before starting his own business making far less was being voluntarily underemployed. Id. at 371.
From the statute itself again:
a) indicates that they can look at up to 5 years' worth of your past earnings. This is relatively new to the FL statutes. But looking at attorney-written summaries, it does make it quite clear that looking 3-5 years at past earnings is legitimate.income may not be imputed based upon:
a. Income records that are more than 5 years old at the time of the hearing or trial at which imputation is sought; or
b. Income at a level that a party has never earned in the past, unless recently degreed, licensed, certified, relicensed, or recertified and thus qualified for, subject to geographic location, with due consideration of the parties’ existing time-sharing schedule and their historical exercise of the time-sharing provided in the parenting plan or relevant order.
Next, from an attorney:
Key here is voluntarily refusing to do so.An important note is that the Courts specifically retained the power to impute a higher income based upon proof that a party could earn more income than provided for in the statute, but voluntarily refused to do so. This change makes it more difficult for parents to decrease income levels intentionally in an effort to pay less in child support.
Here's my take:
The odds are in Mom's favor on the surface. You have, of course, voluntarily reduced your income. But if it happens before there is even a child, can it be held against you? Do we apply "voluntary" to every person who has reduced their income, even if it is not in an attempt to escape the CS obligation? The consensus appears to be "Yes" for the most part even though the statute is rather inconveniently silent on the matter of intent.
Your attorney may need to get imaginative with that, but it's something you need to discuss.