When it comes to child support, a parent cannot avoid their legal obligation because they are “voluntarily impoverished.” This refers to a scenario in which the parent obliged to make support payments “has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond the parent’s control, to render the parent without adequate resources.” If a court finds a parent is voluntarily impoverished, the judge may “impute” income to the parent for purposes of calculating support.

To give a simple, hypothetical example: A parent works in a professional job where they earn $40,000 per year. The parent is then involved in a divorce where the other parent seeks custody and child support. The first parent then voluntarily quits their job and takes a lower-paying position that only makes $20,000 a year. Under these circumstances, the judge finds the parent voluntarily impoverished themselves, and “imputes” the lost $20,000 in income back to the parent when calculating the amount of child support due.

Court of Special Appeals: Judges Not Required to Find “Voluntary Impoverishment” in Alimony Disputes

Now what about alimony? This is another situation in which a court may impute income on the parent of a spouse who has deliberately reduced their income. But unlike child support, nothing in Maryland law expressly requires the court to make a finding of voluntary impoverishment.

A recent unpublished decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Jimenez v. Jimenez, provides a helpful illustration. In this case, a husband and wife divorced in Washington County. The court ordered the husband to make alimony payments of $950 per month for the first three years following the divorce, and $650 per month for the two years following that. The judge based these figures on the husband’s “imputed income” of $55,000 per year.

Although the court determined that the husband “had not voluntarily impoverished himself,” the judge nevertheless noted the husband had previously earned more than $55,000 per year and that based on his “education and skills,” he was likely to earn more than his presently reported annual income of $48,000 in the near future.

The husband argued on appeal it was improper to impute any income to him absent a finding of voluntary impoverishment. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed. It reiterated that such findings are required in child support cases, not alimony disputes. When it comes to alimony, a trial court need only determine that a spouse “is capable of earning more income than he or she is earning at the time of the divorce.” Indeed, it is important for a court to consider a spouse’s “potential income” post-divorce, as that speaks to their ability to meet their own needs “as well as those of [their] former spouse.” In this case, the trial judge properly reasoned that the husband’s “prior earning history” and the “upward trajectory” of his current job would allow him to make a minimum of $55,000 per year.

Contact Southern Maryland Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/1311s19.pdf