Child Support Based on Children's Needs

One of the most concerning aspects of the current child support system is the practice of imputing income to a parent who is unemployed or underemployed. This practice raises significant questions about fairness, due process, and the balance between parental rights and child welfare. By assigning fictional income to a parent, courts may inadvertently penalize legitimate career and caregiving choices, potentially infringing on principles of self-determination and economic freedom.

There are many reasons why a parent might be unemployed or underemployed. A parent may be earning a relatively high hourly wage but working in a job that is not full-time. In such a case, the parent has more time available to care for the children and may be earning less than if they worked full-time. However, in this case the court will "impute" income that does not exist to the paying parent.

This practice creates perverse incentives that can harm both parents and children. By imputing income, courts may pressure parents to work two jobs or longer hours, reducing the time they can spend with their children and potentially compromising their health and well-being. For custodial parents, this could mean less direct care for the child; for non-custodial parents, it could mean fewer opportunities for meaningful involvement in their child’s life. Far from serving the best interests of the child, this approach may prioritize financial obligations over the relational and emotional needs of the family.

Courts should not be in the business of second-guessing parents’ job choices absent clear evidence of bad faith. In a free society, individuals have the right to make decisions about their careers, balancing financial, personal, and familial priorities. When courts impute income without concrete evidence of intentional underemployment—such as turning down job offers or quitting without cause—they risk overstepping their role and infringing on economic freedom. While courts must ensure that parents meet their obligations, the current approach often penalizes legitimate choices rather than targeting actual evasion.

Distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary underemployment is a significant challenge for courts, yet the current system often places the burden on the parent to prove their inability to find work, rather than requiring evidence of intentional evasion. For example, a parent who has been laid off, is in school, or faces a tight job market may still be imputed income based on past earnings or theoretical earning capacity, regardless of their actual circumstances. This approach undermines self-determination—a cornerstone of a free society—by penalizing parents for factors beyond their control. To address this, courts should adopt a higher standard of proof, requiring clear evidence of bad faith before imputing income, such as documented job refusals or intentional reduction of hours without justification.

When courts impute income and mandate child support payments based on fictional earnings, they risk depriving parents of the ability to make fundamental choices about their careers, caregiving roles, and personal lives. This practice can disproportionately burden parents who are already struggling, potentially infringing on their due process rights by failing to provide a fair opportunity to demonstrate their actual financial capacity. While child support is a critical obligation, the process of imputing income must be applied judiciously to avoid penalizing legitimate choices and circumstances.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions for their children, holding in cases like Troxel v. Granville (2000) that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children,” and that such decisions are presumed to be in the child’s best interest. While this precedent applies primarily to custody and visitation, it underscores the broader principle that courts should defer to fit parents’ choices absent clear evidence of harm or bad faith. In the context of child support, this principle suggests that courts should hesitate to impute income when a parent’s employment decisions—such as working part-time to care for a child—are reasonable and in the child’s best interest.

Critics of reforming income imputation argue that the practice is necessary to prevent parents from intentionally reducing their income to avoid child support obligations. While this concern is valid, the current system often casts too wide a net, penalizing parents who are acting in good faith. A more targeted approach, requiring clear evidence of intentional underemployment, would better balance the need to protect children with the rights of parents.

In conclusion, while the child support system aims to protect the best interests of children, the practice of imputing income often undermines fairness, parental autonomy, and child welfare. Policymakers should consider reforms, such as shifting the burden of proof to require evidence of bad faith, increasing judicial training on economic realities, and exploring alternative support models that prioritize both financial and emotional well-being. Only through such changes can the system truly serve the needs of families.