Raymont v. Raymont

This case involved a family court dispute where one parent was accused of deliberately earning less money than they could to avoid paying higher child support. The court had to decide whether to calculate child support based on the parent's actual lower income or their potential higher earning capacity. The court ruled that when a parent voluntarily chooses to work below their ability level (called "voluntary underemployment"), the court can assign them a higher "imputed income" for child support calculations. This means the court can base child support payments on what the parent could reasonably earn, not just what they actually earn. This ruling matters for workers because it shows courts will look beyond your current paycheck when determining financial obligations. If you have skills, education, or work history that suggests you could earn more, a judge may hold you responsible for that higher earning potential in child support cases. Workers should understand that deliberately taking lower-paying jobs or reducing work hours to avoid financial responsibilities may not protect them from higher support obligations. Courts aim to ensure children receive adequate support based on both parents' true earning capacity, not artificially reduced incomes.