A person’s income may be imputed if he or she is intentionally unemployed or intentionally underemployed. Here are some important things to consider:

A person’s income may be imputed if he or she is the:
(a) payor of child support (including parents with an obligation to contribute towards the child’s special or extraordinary expenses),
(b) payor of spousal support, or
(c) recipient of spousal support.

The requirement that the under/unemployment is “intentional” does not mean that the other person needs to show that the person is acting in bad faith. For example, income may be imputed to you if you quit your job to pursue hobbies, even if you are not making this choice to intentionally reduce your support obligations (or increase the other’s support obligations). A person can be acting in good faith and still have their income imputed.

If you want the court to impute income to your former spouse, you will need to demonstrate to the court that your spouse is capable of earning more. It is then your spouse’s responsibility to convince the court that income should not be imputed. For example, your former spouse might be able to demonstrate that he or she is attending school and has reasonable career goals. Your former spouse may also be able to prove that he or she is not capable of earning as much as they used to because of medical reasons, including disability due to physical or mental health issues.

Pursuant to the relevant case law, courts will consider the following principles when determining whether to impute income to parents with a child support obligation:

(1) There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy and there is no reason why the parent cannot work.  It is “no answer for a person liable to support a child to say he or she is unemployed and does not intend to seek work, or that his potential to earn income is an irrelevant factor.”

(2) When imputing income on the basis of intentional under-employment, a court must consider what is reasonable under the circumstances.  The age, education, experience, skills and health of the parent are factors to be considered in addition to such matters as availability of work, freedom to relocate and other obligations.

(3) A parent’s limited work experience and job skills do not justify a failure to pursue employment that does not require significant skills, or employment in which the necessary skills can be learned on the job.  While this may mean that job availability will be at the lower end of the wage scale, courts have never sanctioned the refusal of a parent to take reasonable steps to support his or her children simply because the parent cannot obtain interesting or highly paid employment.

(4) Persistence in unremunerative employment may entitle the court to impute income.

(5) A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations.

(6) As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income.