 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Laplante v. Laplante11/14/2005
Raymond LaPlante appeals from an order setting his former wife's child support obligation at $100 per month, arguing that under RCW 26.19.071, the trial court should have imputed income to Cathy LaPlante at the median income rate set by the census bureau. Because the statute permits any calculation supported by the record, the court did not abuse its discretion in imputing an income less than the median census rate. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Cathy and Raymond LaPlante married in 1988. They had four children together. Cathy reported Raymond's domestic violence to police on at least one occasion prior to their separation. After another incident of domestic violence in June 1999, the couple separated. They divorced in 2000. The couple was living in California when they separated. Initially, Raymond moved back to Seattle, and the four children remained in California with Cathy. Shortly thereafter, Raymond persuaded Cathy to return to Seattle with the children, and until 2001, the parents shared custody of all four children equally. In 2001, the children began living primarily with their father, visiting with Cathy on alternating weekends. Cathy sought modification of the parenting plan in June 2003. The trial court entered a parenting plan on August 31, 2004. The plan designated Raymond as the primary residential parent for all four children and left child support to be determined in light of that designation. The parties agreed to proceed by affidavits.
On December 16, 2004, a final child support order was entered. The court based its ruling on the child support worksheets submitted by the parties. The parties disputed whether Cathy had any current income or ability to earn income. She reported no current income. Raymond contended otherwise, pointing to a website on which Cathy offers her services as a doula/midwife. Raymond had no evidence that Cathy earned income from this venture, and the court did not include Cathy's doula business in its calculation. Rather, because Cathy's income was unknown, the court imputed income of $941 based upon Cathy's most recent reported income: Mother's income is calculated at $12.11 per hour at 20 hours a week x 4.3 weeks per month, as this was her income at her last employment in August 2003, ending due to her partial disability (back injury).
Clerk's Papers at 378.
Raymond appeals the child support order, arguing the court should have imputed the statutory default amount.
DISCUSSION
We review an order setting child support for abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Fiorito, 112 Wn. App. 657, 664, 50 P.3d 298 (2002). An abuse of discretion occurs only when a trial court's decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Id. This court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court where the record shows that all relevant factors were considered and the order is not unreasonable under the circumstances. Id.
In determining the amount of child support, the court must impute income to a parent if it finds the parent is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed. RCW 26.19.071(6). The court makes this determination based on the level of employment at which a parent is capable and qualified, given the parent's work history, education, health, and age, or any other relevant factors. Id.; In re Marriage of Sacco, 114 Wn.2d 1, 4, 784 P.2d 1266 (1990).
If the court determines it must impute income, the statute provides a default income measure:
In the absence of information to the contrary, a parent's imputed income shall be based on the median income of year-round full-time workers as derived from the United
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|