Slackers, Shirkers, and Career-Changers: Imputing Income for Under-Employment and Unemployment

• Author: Rollie Thompson
• Pages: 153-182

Slackers,

Shirkers,

and

Career-Changers:

Imputing

Income

for

Under-Employment

and

Unemployment

Rollie

Thompson

A.

INTRODUCTION

Consider

four

fact

situations, like appetizers

before

the

main course,

or

warm-up exercises before

the

run,

or

variations

on a

theme

...

1.

Mike,

a

mine mechanic, makes

$80,000

a

year, although

his

income

fluctuates

annually depending

on his

voluntary overtime. Shortly

before

separation, Mike

was

promoted

to

supervisor

of the

mechan-

ics

at the

mine,

and his

income increased

to

$100,000, partly because

of

mandatory overtime

in the

position.

He was

ordered

to pay the

table amount

for his two

children,

now

seven

and

nine years old.

A

year

after

the

promotion

and

eight months

after

separation, Mike

de-

cided

he

didn't

like

the

stress

and

mandatory overtime

of the

super-

visory position

and

returned

to his

former

job,

now

earning

$80,000.

Mike

has

applied

to

vary child support downwards.

His

wife

earns

$40,000.

2.

Andy worked

for a

community advocacy organization

as its

execu-

tive

director.

He

earned

a

salary

of

$40,000

per

year. Andy became

interested

in

legal issues

in his

work,

and he was

admitted

to law

school. Andy worked half-time

and

attended

law

school part-time.

His

wife

Christine

was not

happy with

his

decision, because

she

was

left

to

juggle

the

demands

of two

young children, aged

six and

Rollie

Thompson

is a

Professor

of Law at

Dalhousie

Law

School

in

Halifax

153

X-

154

ROLLIE THOMPSON

eight,

and her own

job. Christine earns

$20,000

per

year.

The

couple

separated

two

years later

in

May,

after

Andy finished

the

second

half

of his

first

year. Andy

can

return

to his

full-time

job,

but he

wants

to be a

lawyer

and

intends

to

continue

law

school

half-time.

He

asks

that

his

child

support

be

based

upon

his

income

of

$20,000.

3.

Yann

has

undergraduate

and

graduate degrees

in

English.

He has

worked

on

various writing contracts during

the

marriage.

His

wife

Martha works

in a

managerial position

for a

local company, earning

$80,000

per

year.

For

many years,

on and

off,

Yann

has

been work-

ing on

"the great Canadian novel."

He was at

home more

of the

time

with their children,

now

ages nine, ten,

and

twelve.

Yann

has

never

made more than

$10,000

in any one

year

from

his

writing work.

He

and

Martha separated.

The

children reside primarily with Martha,

and she

seeks child support

from

him, based

on an

imputed income

of

$16,000

to

$20,000,

as if

Yann

has

full-time

employment

at or

above

the

minimum wage.

4.

Steve worked

as a

municipal

firefighter

for

many years

and

shortly

before

his

dismissal

he

earned

$80,000

per

year. Steve

and his

wife

Vicki

have

one

child,

a

daughter

age

fourteen,

for

whom Steve paid

the

table amount along with spousal support

for

Vicki.

Vicki

has a

part-time job, earning

$10,000

a

year,

after

being

at

home

for

many

years. Steve

was

dismissed

from

his job

four

years

after

separation

as a

result

of

money missing

from

an

employees' activity

fund

that

he

managed. Despite

the

apparent

theft,

no

criminal charges were

ever

laid. Steve

now

works part-time

as a

security guard, since

he

cannot

yet

collect

his

pension. Steve applies

to

reduce both child

and

spousal support.

These

four

fact

situations raise

a

constellation

of

issues, which

are

gath-

ered under

the

rubric "imputing income"

or

"under-employment"

or

"voluntary reduction

of

income."11

will

refer

to

them

from

time

to

time

throughout

the

article.

Those

of you who

like

a

text

for the

sermon will recognize section

i9(i)(a)

of the

Federal

Child

Support

Guidelines2

as the

relevant legislative

provision

and

here

it is:

I

have

to

acknowledge

my

debt

to an

excellent American article

on the

subject,

which analyzes these

issues

in

detail,

even

if I

don't

agree with many

of the

author's

proposals: Lewis Becker,

"Spousal

and

Child Support

and the

'Voluntary

Reduction

of

Income'

Doctrine"

(1997)

29

Connecticut

L.

Rev. 647.

Federal

Child

Support

Guidelines,

SOR/97-175

[Guidelines].

1

2