Three recent court cases from the Brandon Courts show that our Judges are willing to use the imputation of income section of the Child Support Guidelines.
The Child Support Guidelines tell us how much child support parents must pay based upon their income. Most of the time this is a fairly easy calculation. Parents know how much they earn in a year by looking at their pay cheque stubs and tax returns. The less income they earn, the less they pay.
However, the Child Support Guidelines at section 19 also allow a Judge to add non-existent income to parents in certain circumstances. The most commonly-used circumstance is when a parent is intentionally underemployed.
For example, a parent who chooses to work part-time, or not at all, when they are capable of working full-time may have to pay child support as if they are working. There are also cases in which a parent works full-time but gave up a well-paying career to choose a different livelihood that does not pay as well. If the parent's income at the former job paid $100,000 per year and the new job pays only $30,000 per year, a Judge can set child support based on income of $100,000 per year.
Sometimes the reason for the unemployment or under-employment is reasonable. A parent caring for a new baby or dealing with health problems or starting a business may not be seen by a Judge as intentionally underemployed.
In 2022 the family court in Brandon issued three decisions in which the Judge imputed income to a parent.
In Blanchard v. Maxwell (https://canlii.ca/t/jpk97) the father gave up his career as a heavy duty mechanic to pursue farming. He earned significantly less money with his new business venture. The Judge decided to impute the father's former mechanic's income to him and have him pay child support based upon that amount. Parents are free to change careers to pursue a more fulfilling career, but not when they have minor children to support.
In Gerrow v. Minty (https://canlii.ca/t/jp71s) the mother did not have a full-time job, instead did some casual property management for her father. The Judge looked at her work history and imputed full-time, minimum wage income to her.
In Wilson v. Wilson (https://canlii.ca/t/jrldg) the father earned an employment income but reduced that income on his tax return by his farming losses. The Judge decided to impute those farming losses to the father, or basically ignore them, and have him pay child support based upon his full employment income.
Comments
Post a Comment