I've had this issue come up several times before and it is a difficult one. It typically is an problem with people who work in the construction trade where they have an on-season and off-season. It strikes me as fundamentally unfair to make a guy pay child support during his off-season based upon a yearly average because he winds up paying support on money he simply doesn't have and may never get in the future.
Of course, the problem with using the actual current income to set support is that the parties would have to return several times a year to adjust support whenever the season changed and no courts like that.
I argued in favor of using actual current income for a guy in the construction business a few years ago in front of a judge who disagreed with me. She used the prior year's average in calculating support. A year later, at settlement conference, it turned out I was right-- the client made about $10,000 less that prior year than the year before so the support order was technically inflated. I had tried to point out that he was not going to make the same in the future due to a number of factors but she, the judge, wouldn't listen.
So yeah, many judges will simply use prior year's average in setting support for someone with seasonal income, but they don't have to. Judges have discretion to take into account any factors they think are fair at gauging what really needs to be assessed- what the best predictor is of the payor's future income (after all, support is suppose to be based on actual income during the period support is payable).
The problem with cases with seasonal income is that we have to use a crytal ball of sorts to try to figure out future income and using the last 12 months just often isn't the answer.
|