Posted on 06/15/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by freespirited
Jane Chen was a well-paid Wisconsin anesthesiologist. But at the age of 43, she decided to "retire" to stay home with her three school-age children.
Even in 2005, Chen's decision was hardly unusual or remarkable: Women (and sometimes men) frequently forego employment, even lucrative employment, in order to stay home with children.
What is remarkable and unusual, though, is that Chen's decision landed her in court. Her ex-husband argued that, by staying home, she was "shirking" her responsibility to provide financial support to their children. And he complained that due to her decision, a court was now ordering him to pay $4000 more a month in child support.
In Chen v. Warner, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently sided with Jane Chen. It held that her decision was reasonable under the circumstances, and did not constitute "shirking."
Other states, however, have ruled differently. And overall, America features a checkered legal landscape on the treatment of divorced parents who forego income in favor of at-home childrearing.
Some Background on Child Support Law
Once, only fathers were legally required to pay child support. Now, under the law, all parents have a legal duty to support their children.
In a family with married parents, that obligation is enforced mainly through the abuse-and-neglect laws. Parents who fail to support their children risk losing them, and may even face criminal penalties.
When parents divorce - or sometimes, even if they never married - the duty of support changes. For the non-custodial parent, it is enforced through the imposition of formal child support obligations.
In theory, child support has always been available. But historically, it was not routinely awarded until at least the 1970s. Then, through a series of federal laws, Congress required states to adopt rules that would result in a greater number of child support awards, in greater amounts. (It did not, however, mandate what the rules ought to be.)
Pursuant to a 1988 federal law, every state today maintains child support guidelines that dictate exactly how much a non-custodial parent should be obligated to pay. The guidelines in each state are derived from a set formula, which is supposed to produce an appropriate amount of support to meet children's needs. These formulas, regardless of their technical variations, are all based on the basic assumption that children should benefit from roughly the same percentage of parental income after divorce as they did in the intact household.
States tend to follow one of three basic formulas:
First, some states, such as Wisconsin, simply require noncustodial parents to pay a flat percentage of their income to the custodial parents based on the number of children being supported.
Second, a majority of states use the "income-shares" model. In this model, total support is calculated based on a percentage of combined parental income. Then, each parent's portion is calculated based on his or her relative earnings.
Third, a handful of states use a model that first carves out necessary expenses for parental support, and then assigns a percentage of the remaining income for child support.
One of Congress' goals in requiring states to adopt guidelines was to decrease judicial discretion in awarding child support and, thereby, to increase consistency among awards. As a result, the amount of support called for by any set of guidelines is "presumptively" appropriate - which means that a judge can only deviate from that amount (up or down) in certain, limited circumstances.
The Definition of "Income" for Child Support Purposes
While state definitions of "income" vary, most permit judges to replace actual "income" with "earning capacity" in appropriate circumstances.
One such circumstance would be an attempt to avoid obligations. For example, suppose a father quits his job immediately before appearing in divorce court, for the sole purpose of evading a child support award. In that situation, the court will likely substitute his former monthly wage for "0" when calculating child support.
But what if the loss of income is not an obvious attempt to avoid obligation - as was the case with Jane Chen? Should the judge calculate support based on actual income (even if it is "0")? Or should the judge look to the individual's earning capacity instead?
That is the question the Wisconsin courts grappled with, in Chen v. Warner.
Chen v. Warner: The Finances and Their Agreement
At the end of their 18-year marriage, Chen and her then-husband, John Warner, both worked at the Marshfield Clinic. She was earning $236,000 per year as an anesthesiologist; he was earning $256,452 as a neuroradiologist. Both parents had always worked full-time while raising their three children.
When they divorced, the couple agreed to joint physical custody of the children, with custody to each parent in alternating weeks. Based on this fact, and on the respective incomes of the parties, Wisconsin's child support guidelines would have dictated roughly equal child support obligations for the parents in this case (Warner would owe a few hundred dollars more, based on his slightly greater income).
Thus, Chen and Warner parted ways without a child support order in place, agreeing that each would simply pay the children's expenses during custodial periods and unusual expenses would be shared equally. Also, Warner would put $400 per month per child in a college savings account.
Shortly after the divorce became final, Chen sought to go part-time at the clinic. When they refused her request, she quit. Because she had savings of over a million dollars, she anticipated being able to easily cover expenses for herself and the children with investment income alone.
The market downturn surprised her, however, and she found herself with insufficient income to cover her expenses. She then sought to require Warner to pay child support.
By that time, Warner's income had nearly doubled -- to $472,000. Even after he paid his own expenses and contributed to a retirement account, he was left with discretionary monthly income of $12,000.
Thus, his ability to pay child support was hardly in doubt. But, on the other hand, neither was Chen's: Had she stayed at the clinic, she, too, would have been earning over $400,000 yearly, and even returning to work after time off, she could still garner a hefty salary if she chose.
Voluntary Un- and Underemployment: Courts Can Decide Its Effect
Should one parent have to pay child support because of another's change in job status? Or should the parent with changed job status have his or her earning capacity taken into account? (Often, this question is, in practice, the question of whether this parent will be forced to return to work, since one can hardly spend "imputed" income.)
The answer is: It's generally up to the court's discretion.
Few courts still require proof of an ill-motive. But a parent who voluntarily impoverishes herself in a bid to avoid paying child support will certainly fail. But what about when the motive is different - for instance, the lower income is because the parent has opted to spend more time taking care of the children?
In some states, there is an express statutory exception for a "nurturing parent" with young children. Louisiana, for example, exempts the primary caretaker of children under five from having income imputed to them. Similarly, the American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution recommend against imputing income, based on earning capacity, to a custodial parent with non-school age children.
Wisconsin has no statutory exception, however. The statute permits the discretionary imputation of income if it concludes that a parent is "shirking" - the state's term for voluntary un- or under-employment. ("Shirking," despite its very pejorative connotations, is used by Wisconsin courts simply to describe any unreasonable voluntary decision to reduce or forego income, regardless of motive.)
Wisconsin also, however, permits a court to consider the desirability of having an at-home parent -- and the value of any services provides by the at-home parent -- in deciding whether to impute income to that parent based on his or her earning capacity.
The Chen/Warner Case: Was Chen's Decision to Be At Home "Reasonable"?
The parties in the case all agreed that the unemployment was voluntary, and that the true purpose was for Chen to spend more time with her children. But was it reasonable?
An intact family has the luxury of making almost any decision about work and income that it sees fit - even if the consequence is that children have much less money available to meet their needs. And many families elect to have one parent - usually the mother, despite greater workforce access and gains in equality for women - stay home while children are young.
The decision is made easier by trust: The parent who stays home trusts the other parent to provide for her if, later, her career opportunities are more limited; the parent who works trusts the other parent not to monopolize the children's affections, and gives up time with the children because he trusts that this is best for the family as a whole.
But when parents are divorced, trust may be lacking - and parents may come into conflict when they must defend such decisions to a court. Worse, this task is made all the harder when one parent's unemployment directly affects an ex-spouse's child support obligation.
Parents who might have easily come to a decision about work and income during their marriage, may find such a decision extremely difficult to make when they are divorced. Even simply continuing a prior arrangement that worked well can become controversial as the parties' interests diverge.
The father in this case argued that although children generally benefit from having an at-home parent, the benefit was not sufficient to outweigh the increased burden on him. Moreover, he argued, the children were of school-age, had no special needs, and had done well earlier in their lives, when both parents worked full time.
The appellate court ruled, however, that the mother's decision to retire was reasonable, given the circumstances: She had been unable to find appropriate part-time work, the father could easily afford child support, and the children would benefit from her greater involvement in their lives and activities. It thus upheld the trial court's order for the father to pay $4000/month in child support.
Other States' Approaches: Different From Wisconsin's
In other states without an express exception for caregiving, the results have been mixed. (The variations are aptly described in a 1999 student note in the Catholic Law Review authored by Catherine Moseley Clark, "Imputing Parental Income in Child Support Determinations: What Price for a Child's Best Interest?")
Some courts focus solely on earning capacity, without regard to motive - ill or otherwise. Others take account of a broader conception of a child's best interests to include their non-economic needs as well.
Outside the caregiving context, noncustodial parents routinely have income imputed to them when they voluntarily reduce or forego wages. A father in a recent New York case, for example, was held in contempt of court for refusing to seek admission to the bar when he had both completed law school and passed the bar exam.
The father had chosen to pursue theological studies instead -- a decision the court ultimately said he was not entitled to make given his outstanding child support obligations. His responsibility, in the court's eyes, was to maximize his earning capacity, given his demonstrated ability and the opportunity for high-income work at a law firm.
A Case Involving Parents with Lower Income Will Be a Better Test Case
Yet Dr. Chen was permitted to forego an annual income of $415,000 in order to stay home with her school-age children, over whom she had custody only every other week. Was that the right result?
Most observers might say yes - but the answer would be an easy one only because the father had a very high ability to pay the child support. That meant that the Chen/Warner children could have what many would see as the best of both worlds: ample financial support, plus a full-time at-home parent.
(Others, of course, would see having two working parents - each a role model, fulfilling his or her hopes and ambitions - to be the best of both worlds. But on this topic, reasonable minds differ.)
The law might have been better served by a lower-income case - in which one parent's unilateral decision not to work caused a real hardship for the other parent. Also interesting would be a case in which both parents wanted to stay at home - but only one could do so.
What if Dr. Warner had also wanted to be in Dr. Chen's position? This doesn't seem so far-fetched: After all, he'd sought equal physical custody of the children, not just visitation; he was far from an absentee dad.
In such cases, the court would have had to grapple more thoughtfully with the tension between a parent's duty to provide financial support and the obligation to tend to their other needs. It will have to grapple, as well, with the tension between the different visions two now-adversarial parents may have for what is best for themselves, and for their children.
--------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law at Hofstra University. Her columns on family law, trusts and estates, and discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment, may be found in the archive of her columns on this site.
This wife only takes care of the kids 50% of the time.
However, she wants to be fully retired at age 43 for 100% of the time......and have her ex-husband pay for it.
If the court had gone by state guidelines, he would have been paying a lot more. I think for three kids, it's 34% of gross, after FICA, though there is an income ceiling. I couldn't find a good link to get concrete numbers, cuz I didn't wanna spend an hour looking for it. I don't think this site takes into account the ceiling.
http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/wisconsin/
The children spend 50/50 time with the parents. The children are all of school age. Tell me why her refusal to provide for the children is justified? There is a difference between being a stay at home mom for the sake of your children and a stay at home mom because you are too lazy to get and keep a job and/or soak father for more money. Fathers are nothing more than paychecks to the family court system. Anybody who says otherwise hasn't been in front of the judge.
I have read that kids need their parents MORE when they are pre-teen and teenagers than when they are little. There may be reasons why she wants to spend more time with them ... perhaps one of them has emotional problems etc. We don't really know
In any case, my point was that the majority her at FR seem to believe that a mom's place is taking care of the children. Yet when one woman wants to do that, the general consensus is against her.
I'm just commenting on the dissonance.
One of 'em is right here. This is a pretty unique case for me to be commenting on, however. I do believe that, in light of what appears to be a rather acrimonious divorce, the children here could probably stand to have more parental involvement--either parent, I'm not trying to make a judgement call. What I don't really understand is how the mother can actually be more involved with her kids, given their ages. Is she planning on homeschooling them? If not, she's going to spend her days rattling around in her mansion while her kids are in class. Doesn't sound a whole lot like SAHMothering to me. Hell, I just returned to part time work because two of my three kids are now school age.
No clear winners in this case, just a couple of real losers.
In other words, Chen doesn't see the kids between 8 and 3 every day during the weeks when she supposedly has custody of them, and doesn't see them at all during the weeks when she doesn't have custody. Clearly she's not really a stay-at-home mom who is breastfeeding a baby, caring for a toddler, and homeschooling a six-year-old. She is sitting by the pool and having lunch with her girlfriends. She's taking advantage of having a successful husband as if they were still married. What a sow. No wonder he's squawking. Four grand a month is four grand a month no matter how rich you are, and it's particularly grating to know that you're supporting a lazy ex.
I write this as a woman who is grateful for every penny my hard-working ex provides to our children.
Well let them both quit and go on welfare after the money is gone. Frankly they are probably both first class Shits.
Yes, I agree--but in my state the mother's labor in taking care of the children is considered to have monetary value, and I appreciate that. I was a stay-at-home mother when my children were young and my son was sick all the time.
something does not add up.
This must be a nuance of the Wis. support law.
Under the Model laws, his support obligation based on his income is essentially seperate from the mothers.
The interesting thing about this article is that if the situation were reversed, a husband who was intentionally underemployed (ie if this doctor intentionally worked a minimum wage job as a means of legally provable evasion) would not be an unusual phenomenon.
With a bit of humor, it seems this is a case of SIDS. Sudden Income Deficiency Syndrome.
hmmm anyone else think these docs are overpaid? Where are all the illegal alien docs to hold wages down? These obviously are jobs Americans won't do for 100k. Oh I forgot the AMA and BAR are monopolies exempt from Bush's plan to lower wages.
Wisconsin has an alternative formula for high-income payers. See Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter DWD 40.04(5).
He only paid a couple hundred plus the college fund when they were both working because their incomes were close to the same.
See my last post. Wisconsin child support law does take into consideration the income of both parents, percentage of placement, as well as adjusting for high-income payers.
The interesting thing about this article is that if the situation were reversed, a husband who was intentionally underemployed (ie if this doctor intentionally worked a minimum wage job as a means of legally provable evasion) would not be an unusual phenomenon.
Wisconsin also takes into account "income imputed based on earning capacity" (DWD 40.03(3)).
The only loophole I see here is that the administrative code says courts "may" (rather than "shall") impute income to a parent based upon their ability to earn. If the state supreme court ruled on this basis, then they were simply upholding the discretion of the district court judge.
No, it would just make getting out of the "contract" of marriage about as hard as any other, so maybe the participants would think a little more before entering it and while in it...
Crop dusters seldom set records.
Definitely a bummer when you pay for the boob job and don't get to enjoy the results!
Thanx for the link. I see they've made changes since the last time I looked. It's been a couple of years.
No, I'm not gonna do the worksheet. LOL Looks they didn't impute any income for her & he's paying standard high income rate for three kids (17%), for half the time.
Yeah, IIRC the most recent changes went into effect in December '03.
Is child support tax deductible, does anyone know?
No, just as most expenses for children living with their married parents are not tax deductible. I say most, because of the deductions for things like medical care & college tuition.
The state also has something called family care, which would include a portion for something like alimony (called spousal support) & the tax deductibility of that pulls out a CS portion, as nondeductible & leaves the spousal portion as deductible for payer & taxable income for the recipient. If these are after tax dollars, that really is a big bite.
Course it is a really big bite. Paying the freight to raise kids is a big bite, even when the marriage is intact. Thing is, the parents are not as likely to think of it that way when they are still together. The guy probably pays more money to support Uncle Sam & other tax entities than he pays toward his kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.