Imputing Income in Child Support Cases: Legal Standards, Case Law, and What Courts Often Get Wrong

In the context of family law, imputation of income is a pivotal concept used by courts to ensure fair and equitable financial contributions from both parents. When a parent is underemployed, unemployed, or seemingly avoiding financial responsibility, courts may assign a hypothetical income, called imputed income, based on what the parent could be earning.

Understanding this process is crucial, especially when courts rely not just on actual earnings but also on the perceived earning capacity of a parent. Incorrect imputation can have long-lasting legal and financial consequences, including reversals on appeal.

This article delves into a real-life appellate case, explores the mechanics of income imputation, introduces related legal doctrines, and provides answers to frequently asked questions, all under the framework of child support and divorce law.

What Does “Imputing Income” Mean in Child and Spousal Support Cases?

Imputing income is a judicial process where the court assigns an income level to a parent regardless of their actual earnings. This is done when the court believes a parent is capable of earning more but is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or engaging in evasive behavior to reduce their financial obligation.

Key Conditions Courts Consider:

1. Ability to Work: Includes professional background, academic credentials, work experience, and health.
2. Willingness to Work: The sincerity and effort shown in securing employment.
3. Opportunity to Work: Whether the job market offers realistic employment opportunities for the parent.

The imputed income is then used to calculate obligations using state-specific tools, such as California’s DissoMaster, a software system that computes guideline child support amounts.

Case Study: In Re: Marriage of Cohn

The July 27, 1998, appellate decision in In Re: Marriage of Cohn presents a textbook example of how critical the proper imputation of income is within child and spousal support litigation.

The Parties

Howard Cohn, an attorney by profession, was the support obligor. At one point, he earned as much as $28,600 per month. After his employer filed for bankruptcy in 1993, Howard’s income collapsed. Stress from the financial collapse led to a mental breakdown and hospitalization.

During this period, his spouse, Patricia, relocated with their three children to Seattle. Their marriage was legally dissolved in January 1996.

Timeline and Financial Events

• 1993: Howard’s employer declares bankruptcy.
• 1995–1996: Howard earns only $8,000 in gross income. His law practice generates more expenses than revenue.
• 1996: Trial court imputes $40,000 and later $80,000 annual income to Howard, based on his past earnings and presumed professional opportunities.

Despite Howard’s efforts to reestablish his career, including work with private lenders, selling living trusts, and starting his law firm, the court ruled that he should have earned more. However, this decision was appealed.

The Legal Framework: Imputing Income Based on Earning Capacity

The appellate court overturned the original imputation ruling, emphasizing that imputing income must be based on substantial evidence across three pillars:

1. Ability to Work

Howard had extensive legal experience and prior income to prove his ability. Yet his recent mental health struggles and age raised questions about current performance expectations.

2. Willingness to Work

Howard consistently sought employment, accepted jobs in different fields, opened a law firm, and eventually planned to relocate for better opportunities.

3. Opportunity to Work

This became the crux of the appeal. The court questioned whether Howard had realistic employment opportunities. For salaried jobs, this requires evidence of an employer willing to hire. For professionals like Howard, the court required a broader lens, looking at whether a person could reasonably create income through self-employment based on their training and market conditions.

Role of DissoMaster in Child Support Calculations

In California, courts often rely on DissoMaster, a standardized program used to calculate support based on factors like:

• Gross income (actual or imputed)
• Custody arrangements
• Tax implications
• Medical expenses
• Childcare costs

DissoMaster doesn’t question how the income was earned; it only needs a number. That’s why getting the imputed figure right is so essential; once entered, it directly influences the final support order.

Understanding the Broader Legal Context of Imputed Income

Imputation is not just a discretionary tool; it’s bounded by case law, jurisdiction, and evidentiary standards. Courts need more than assumptions; they require documentation, patterns of conduct, and sometimes expert input.

When Courts Commonly Impute Income:

• One parent quits a job without a valid reason.
• The obligor works part-time when full-time work is feasible.
• Career changes reduce income but are not made in good faith.
• A parent refuses to accept available jobs or vocational training.

Comparative View: Imputation Across Jurisdictions

While this article focuses on California law, many states follow similar principles with varying criteria. For instance:

• Texas considers “intentional unemployment.”
• New York applies the “reasonable needs” standard.
• Illinois examines the obligor’s lifestyle relative to declared income.

Understanding state-by-state variations is critical in family law because imputation criteria may shift based on location.

Intersection of Mental Health and Earning Capacity

The Cohn case demonstrates how mental and emotional health must be weighed against presumed earning power. Courts often require:

• Medical documentation
• Psychiatric evaluations
• Expert testimony

Howard’s breakdown showed that even high earners could lose their footing, and support calculations must reflect temporary or permanent incapacity.

The Difference Between Imputing Income for Child vs. Spousal Support

Child support imputation focuses on ensuring the child’s needs are met, prioritizing child welfare.

Spousal support imputation balances fairness for both parties. For example, if one spouse leaves a lucrative job to avoid paying alimony, courts may impute income to uphold equity.

In some cases, courts impute income to both spouses, as happened in the Cohn case, where Patricia’s earning capacity was also considered.

Key Lessons for Future Family Law Cases

1. Evidence is Crucial

Courts need objective proof of job opportunities, market demand, and employment rejections.

2. Professional Self-Employment Requires a Broader View

Unlike traditional salaried roles, solo practitioners should be evaluated on the reasonable likelihood of generating income based on their credentials.

3. Imputation Isn’t Always Linear

If one job fails, it doesn’t prove unwillingness or inability; context, effort, and history all matter.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is considered when imputing income during child support cases?

Courts evaluate a parent’s skills, job history, current market conditions, and attempts to find work.

Can mental health prevent income imputation?

Yes, if properly documented. Courts will avoid imputation if health conditions impede the parent’s ability to earn.

How does self-employment affect income imputation?

Professionals are judged by their capacity to generate income using their skills, even in freelance or private practice settings.

Is DissoMaster used in every state?

No. DissoMaster is specific to California, but other states have similar calculators for guideline support.

Can income be imputed to both parents?

Yes. Courts often assess each parent’s capacity and may impute income to both if evidence supports it.

How can I contest an imputed income figure?

By presenting documentation, expert evaluations, and a clear timeline of employment efforts and health limitations.

How Reape Rickett Can Support You in Income Imputation Disputes

Imputation cases are complex, nuanced, and often emotionally charged. At Reape Rickett, our seasoned family law attorneys bring decades of experience in challenging improper imputation and ensuring that your actual circumstances, not just assumptions, shape legal outcomes.

We offer:

• Legal analysis of income history and capacity
• Strategic representation in both trial and appellate courts
• Guidance on self-employment income tracking
• Coordination with mental health experts and vocational evaluators

Get legal insight tailored to your case.

Contact Reape Rickett Today to schedule your confidential consultation and safeguard your financial future.

Ensuring Just and Informed Support Calculations

Imputation of income is a powerful tool in the hands of family courts, but it must be wielded with precision. As seen in the Cohn case, improper imputation can distort justice and lead to years of appeals.

Whether you’re a parent seeking fair support or defending against unrealistic income assumptions, understanding the legal mechanics and working with a qualified attorney are your best tools.

Reape Rickett is here to provide the clarity, advocacy, and legal support you need.