Logo
Call Now(480)305-8300

Calculating Income for Child Support Calculations in Arizona

Posted on : May 10, 2017, By:  Christopher Hildebrand
Calculating Income for Child Support Calculations in Arizona

Calculating Income for Child Support Calculations in Arizona

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on how the trial court should interpret full-time employment within the Arizona Child Support Guidelines and how to apply the calculation of parent’s income to calculate a child support obligation in McNutt v. McNutt.

After Mr. McNutt and Mrs. McNutt began living together, they had a daughter in 1995 and married the following year. Mrs. McNutt filed for dissolution of marriage in 1999.

During their entire relationship, Mr. McNutt worked as a caretaker for developmentally disabled clients at several residential facilities. In 1993 or 1994, he started working eighty hours per week to enable the parties to purchase a home. Shortly after they separated, Mr. McNutt reduced the number of hours he worked to sixty-four hours per week.

Although he was still working sixty-four hours when the case was tried in 2000, Mr. McNutt testified he wanted to reduce further the hours he worked to increase the quality of time spent with their daughter. He testified he had not yet done so because he would have been unable to pay the full amount of the temporary family support order if he worked less than sixty-four hours per week.

In addition to his salary, Mr. McNutt also received monthly income from a rental property. However, he testified that he received no net income after paying the monthly mortgage and other expenses associated with that rental property.

Mrs. McNutt initially testified he received a net revenue from his property of $220.00 per month, but later admitted that figure merely reflected the difference between the rent payment and the mortgage and she did not know how much net income he received after paying other expenses.

Calculating Income for Child Support Calculations in Arizona.

Calculating Income for Child Support Calculations in Arizona.

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court ordered Mr. McNutt to pay $484.00 per month in child support but did not allocate the federal tax exemption for the child. Mr. McNutt appealed the trial court’s decision with the Court of Appeals.

The court stated that the first step in determining the parents’ support obligation was to calculate each parent’s gross income. The Arizona Child Support Guidelines define gross income broadly as revenue from any source, and any fluctuating income shall be annualized. Revenue from any source which is not continuing or recurring would not necessarily be deemed gross income for child support purposes, and it is not expected that a parent will earn income greater than what would be earned from full-time employment.

Mr. McNutt contended that the court erred in using his eighty-hour workweek to determine his child support obligation because there is no common standard definition, other than a forty-hour workweek, which is associated with full-time employment. He also asserted that any income earned from working more than that forty hours should be characterized as overtime income and excluded from the calculation of a parent’s gross income.

Mr. McNutt argued the Guidelines have implicitly adopted the approach of forty hours being recognized as full-time employment by citing a provision that states: “Seasonal, overtime, or fluctuating income shall be averaged. When income from a full-time job is consistent with income during the marriage, income earned as the result of overtime hours or a second job may be disregarded.”

Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
A Google User
A Google User
20:31 20 Sep 17
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
A Google User
A Google User
21:41 07 Nov 17
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Google User
Google User
14:58 04 Oct 17
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
A Google User
A Google User
16:03 22 Nov 17
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
A Google User
A Google User
22:14 28 Jun 17
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
A Google User
A Google User
18:16 18 Sep 17
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
A Google User
A Google User
19:22 23 Aug 17
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
A Google User
A Google User
17:44 23 Jun 16
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
Bassam Ziadeh
Bassam Ziadeh
21:20 02 Apr 18
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Larry Flint
Larry Flint
21:53 27 Feb 18
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Sam Franchimone
Sam Franchimone
22:09 12 Sep 13

Calculating Income For Child Support in Arizona | The Ruling

The appellate court, however, did not interpret the Guidelines as limiting full-time employment to forty hours. The Arizona justices were not persuaded by his claim that anything over forty hours per week is necessarily overtime because overtime is defined as time beyond an established limit or working hours in addition to those of a regular schedule. Mr. McNutt’s regular schedule as of the trial was sixty-four hours, not forty.

The justices added that the change in the definition of gross income permits an already fully-employed parent to work extra hours or a second job without thereby incurring an increased support obligation. But they did not believe the Guidelines entitled a parent who continued to work the same schedule as they consistently worked during the marriage to a decreased child support obligation.

The court continued by stating that the definition of gross income from self-employment in the Arizona Child Support Guidelines is not limited by any artificial construct of a forty-hour workweek, nor could it be. The court asserted that if they accepted Mr. McNutt’s position and construed the Guidelines as imposing an hourly limitation on the amount of earned income generated from full-time employment, they would be fostering a situation in which children of parents with comparable gross incomes would receive inconsistent child support awards. This will create a difference in child support depending on the parent’ type of employment rather than the ability to pay, a result unfair to both children and parents.

Also, the Arizona Court of Appeals disagreed with Mr. McNutt’s argument that the Guidelines now require the trial court to disregard all overtime wages when calculating gross income, regardless of the nature of the overtime. The justices believed the more likely intent of the Guidelines, one consistent with the concept of full-time employment, was to exclude only non-mandatory or voluntary overtime from gross income.

The Arizona Court of Appeals felt this would ensure the child support award is based on both parents’ regular incomes but leave each parent the choice of working additional hours without exposing that parent to the “treadmill” effect of an ever-increasing child support obligation.

Hildeband Law, PC.

The court of appeals also examined the issue raised by Mr. McNutt’s objection to the trial court’s attribution of a greater amount of income to him than he was earning at the time of the trial. He had voluntarily reduced his work schedule from eighty hours per week to sixty-four hours approximately sixteen months before trial, but the court still attributed income to him based on his previous eighty-hour work schedule.

The appellate court felt that the trial court necessarily concluded that he was not working at his full earning capacity. Mr. McNutt again asserts that a parent who works forty hours per week is necessarily employed at their full earning capacity. The court examined past cases for precedent to decide if the trial court abused its discretion on this issue.

In Little v. Little, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted an “intermediate balancing test” for trial courts to apply when deciding whether to use actual income or earning capacity in making a child support determination when a noncustodial parent voluntarily reduces their income by terminating their employment.

Among the factors the trial court should consider are the financial impact on the children, the reasonableness of the parent’s decision, and whether the decision was made in good faith.

In this case, Mr. McNutt did not terminate his employment, but only reduced his work schedule and was still working sixty-four hours per week. Although the Little balancing test is still applicable here, the court cautioned that trial courts generally should not attribute additional income to a parent that would require an extraordinary work regimen.

Also, in the matter of Marriage of Simpson, the California Supreme Court answered the question of whether earning capacity should, as a general matter, be accurately measured by the work regime engaged in by the supporting spouse during the marriage. That would be true even if such a regimen were extraordinary, requiring excessive hours or a grueling work schedule.

Child Support Calculations in Arizona by Determining Income.

Child Support Calculations in Arizona by Determining Income.

The court concluded that the concept of earning capacity should be measured by the standard of an objectively reasonable work regimen rather than one requiring excessive hours. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable work regimen depends upon all relevant circumstances, including the choice of job available within a particular occupation, working hours, and working conditions.

Utilizing the precedent set by these cases, the appellate court decided that the trial court did not articulate any reasons for attributing sixteen additional hours to Mr. McNutt’s weekly schedule and the record revealed no reasonable basis for doing so. Therefore, they concluded that the trial court abused its discretion on this issue. It appears clear that the burden of proof of establishing whether it is appropriate to include works hours more than forty hours per week is on the parent asserting such a claim.

Mr. McNutt also argues that the trial court’s application of the Guidelines violated his due process and equal protection rights by infringing on his fundamental right to decide the terms of his private employment and, therefore, how he utilizes his time. He cited no authority for his claim that he has a fundamental right to have his child support obligation based on a forty-hour workweek, and the court knew of none.

The justices also stated Mr. McNutt was not treated differently from other divorced parents because in all cases, a parent’s actual, regular, and continuous income is the basis for the child support award. Thus, they ruled that his constitutional objections lacked merit.

Lastly, Mr. McNutt claimed that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allocate the federal tax exemption for his child. The court cited the Guidelines, which provides that in cases where the child support obligation is at least $1,200 per year, there “should” be an allocation of the federal tax exemptions applicable to the children that as closely as possible approximate the percentages of support being provided by each of the parents.

The appellate court concluded that, based on the intent of the Guidelines and the interest of parents in the allocation of the federal tax exemption, the word “should” as used in the Guidelines is mandatory rather than discretionary. Therefore, they ruled the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allocate the federal tax exemption, and they directed the trial court to allocate the exemption on remand.

Determining the gross income of a noncustodial parent is essential to calculating their child support obligation. This case demonstrates a parent working overtime at their job can have that compensation attributed to them as part of their gross income. The Arizona Child Support Guidelines do not limit full-time employment to forty hours per week and as long as said overtime is part of a regular schedule the court will use it in the course of their calculation.

However, if the parent changes his or her regular work schedule during or shortly before the proceedings, the court must be careful to not attribute too many or too little hours without a reasonable basis. Also, the court must allocate the federal tax exemption for any minor child to the parents.

If you have a question about child support in Arizona, please call to speak to one of our experienced Scottsdale and Phoenix Arizona child support attorneys at (480)305-8300.



As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News

Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys, PC As Seen in the News.

Hildebrand Law, PC As Seen in the News.


What’s Hot – Blog