Seattle Attorneys Blog
When a court orders Washington child support, it must follow the statutes and make the required findings. In a recent unpublished case, a father challenged a child support modification order that imputed income to him and required him to share in expenses related to the child’s gymnastics activities.
The mother petitioned to modify the original child support order based on changes in income and asked the court to order the father to share expenses related to the child’s gymnastics.
The father asked for a deviation, claiming he supported his wife and her two children. He also asked for a deduction because the child was on his insurance. His documentation showed that he paid a flat “Employee + Family” rate that was not based on the number of family members.
He claimed he could not afford the additional expense of the child’s gymnastics. He argued the child’s maternal grandfather had paid the child’s gymnastic expenses until his recent death.
The parties’ financial declarations showed they both had a monthly deficit. The father presented his paystubs and calculated his income based on a 35-hour average work week. He also paid $209 per month for family health insurance, which included the child, his wife, and his wife’s two children.
The court determined both parents were working part-time and imputed income to both. The court stated, “the statute is very clear that if a party is not working full-time that the court needs to take any part-time wages and extrapolate them out.” The court explained that it calculated the parties’ base income at their current hourly rate for a full 40 hours per week. The court calculated the mother’s net monthly income at $2,557 and the husband’s at $3,470. It then determined the father earned 57.6% of the parents’ combined net income.
The court then granted a deviation based on the father’s support of one other child. The court then calculated the insurance premium by subtracting the employee rate, and dividing the remainder by four to determine the amount paid for each additional person. The court determined that the amount paid for the child was $27.58 per week, or $119.51 per month. The court calculated the father’s share of that amount as $68.81, added that amount to the base support amount, and subtracted the $119.51 he actually paid. This resulted in a child support amount of $407.04.
The court ordered the parties to share the gymnastic expenses equally. The court also granted the father a “step-in,” allowing him to pay half the difference between the existing support and the new support amount from June through December, and then begin the new support amount.
The father appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by imputing income when he was working full time and there was no finding of underemployment.
Imputed Income
RCW 26.19.071(6) requires a court to impute income to a parent if it finds the parent is either voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. The court makes that determination based on relevant factors, including the parent’s assets, employment and earnings history, education, and job skills. The statute prohibits a court from imputing income to a parent “employed on a full-time basis,” unless it finds they are voluntarily underemployed to reduce their support obligation.
The trial court imputed income to the father because it concluded he was only working part-time, reasoning that “full-time” was 40 hours. The definition of “full-time” in RCW 26.19.011, however, expressly states that it is not necessarily 40 hours per week but is based on the customary maximum, nonovertime hours in the parent’s “occupation, industry, and labor market.” The appeals court noted that the trial court had considered previous overtime, but there was no indication it had considered the factors. Additionally, the court had not made a finding that 40 hours were the customary number of hours applicable to the father.
The mother argued that the evidence supported a finding the father was not working full time. The appeals court pointed out that the trial court had not based its findings on the factors. The mother also argued that even if he was working full-time, the father was underemployed for the purpose of reducing child support. The appeals court also rejected this argument because the trial court had not made a finding that the father was underemployed for the purpose of reducing child support.
Health Insurance Credit
The father also argued the trial court erred in only crediting him for the child’s pro-rata share of the insurance premium when he was required to insure the child and his premium was not based on the number of family members covered.
The appeals court considered a previous case in which a similar calculation was upheld and concluded that crediting the father for only the child’s pro-rata share was within the trial court’s discretion. The appeals court noted that it would have also been within the court’s discretion to grant the father credit for the full family premium.
Extraordinary Expenses
The father also argued the court erred in ordering him to share the gymnastics expenses without finding they were necessary and determining his ability to pay.
RCW 26.19.080(4) gives the court the discretion to determine if amounts ordered in excess of the basic child support calculation are necessary and reasonable.
The trial court determined the gymnastics expenses were reasonable and necessary, considering evidence that the child had been involved in gymnastics for most of her life and could potentially qualify for college scholarships. The appeals court noted that the court had not capped the expenses or found they were commensurate with the income, resources, and standard of living of the parties. The appeals court noted that the father had other children living with him, both parties presented evidence they had a deficit each month, and there was undisputed evidence another family member had previously covered the gymnastics expenses.
The mother argued the court had considered the father’s finances, noting that the order required the parties to agree on the meets that they would pay jointly and allowing the mother to pay for the meets to which the father did not agree. The appeals court pointed out the court had not made the required finding. The appeals court also noted that, although the parties were to agree on which meets to attend, there was no flexibility with regard to uniform expenses and tuition.
The court must find the parent has the ability to pay for extraordinary expenses beyond the base child support calculation. The appeals court noted the trial court must consider the actual cost in light of the parent’s income and expenses. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the father pay the expenses without finding he had the ability to pay.
The appeals court reversed the child support order and remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine if the father was working full time based on the statutory factors. The appeals court also reversed the order that the father pay for gymnastic expenses, stating the trial court could decide whether to consider additional evidence on remand. The appeals court affirmed the health insurance credit.
Contact a Seattle Child Support Lawyer
In this case, the trial court failed to make appropriate findings to support the imputed income and extraordinary expenses. If you are involved in a child support dispute, a skilled Washington family law attorney can help. Call Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation.