Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support

A parent who has the ability to earn a certain level of income who voluntarily takes a lower paying job may be at risk of having income imputed to him or her in calculating Florida child support. In addition to a parent’s work history and education level, a court analyzes job opportunities and salary levels in the community in which the parent lives. This was an issue in the case Sadlak v. Trujillo, 3D20-1575 (Fla. 3d DCA April 13, 2022).

In this paternity case, the trial judge awarded shared parental responsibility to both parents and equal time-sharing. The court heard testimony from a vocational expert who opined that the mother, who was a self-employed attorney, was underemployed earning about $20,000 per year. The expert also testified that if the mother became licensed as a community association manager (CAM), she could earn up to about $76,000 per year. The trial court entered a final judgment of paternity that found the mother to be willfully underemployed and imputed her to $76,000 annually “since she holds an active CAM license.” The mother was ordered to pay the father over $360 per month in child support based on this imputation and she appealed.

The appellate court agreed that the mother was willfully underemployed. However, it found the trial court erroneously imputed income to her. The court held “Here, the record lacks competent substantial evidence that the mother was qualified for employment as a CAM or that she had the ability to earn $76,000 a year as a CAM in the relevant community. First, contrary to the trial court’s finding, there was no evidence that the mother had, or has ever had, a CAM license. Thus, the trial court’s reliance on that fact to impute income is not supported by the evidence. Second, any calculation as to amount of imputed income must consider evidence of the ‘prevailing earnings level in the community.’ Gillespie v. Holdsworth, 333 So. 3d 278, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (quoting § 61.30(2)(b)). While Thomas testified that the mother could, if licensed, work as a CAM and earn between $57,800 and $76,000 a year, her opinion as to an annual salary was based upon data from ‘[t]he bureau of labor market statistics.’ Thomas did not testify that the market statistics reflected salaries for CAMs in the community. Additionally, Thomas offered no testimony that there were CAM positions available to the mother in the local market. [. . .] Third, it was error to impute to the mother an annual income in the amount of $76,000 because the evidence showed that the mother had never earned more than $65,000 a year. Thus, as to the amount of income imputed to the mother, the trial court’s finding was not supported by competent substantial evidence.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.