earnings capacity standard in California

2021When the payor is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may apply the earnings capacity standard to deter the shirking of one’s family obligations.’” (Mendoza v. Ramos, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 ; accord, In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1245-1247 ; In re Marriage of Lim & Carrasco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 768, 775-776 .) Where the payor parent “‘seeks a reduction in court-ordered support based on the changed circumstances of lack of income, it will be the payor parent, as moving party, who bears the burden of showing a lack of ability and

2014When the payor is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may apply the earnings capacity standard to deter the shirking of one’s family responsibilities.’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 , original italics.) Accordingly, “‘“[t]he only limitations against imputing income to an unemployed or underemployed parent is where the parent in fact has no ‘earning capacity’ . . . or relying on earning capacity would not be consistent with the children’s best interest. . . .”’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[a]s long as ability and opportunity to earn exist

2021When the payor is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may apply the earnings capacity standard to deter the shirking of one’s family obligations.’” (Mendoza v. Ramos, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 ; accord, In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1245-1247 ; In re Marriage of Lim & Carrasco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 768, 775-776 .) Where the payor parent “‘seeks a reduction in court-ordered support based on the changed circumstances of lack of income, it will be the payor parent, as moving party, who bears the burden of showing a lack of ability and

2014When the payor is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may apply the earnings capacity standard to deter the shirking of one’s family responsibilities.’ [Citation.]” (Mendoza, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 685 , original italics.) Accordingly, “‘“[t]he only limitations against imputing income to an unemployed or underemployed parent is where the parent in fact has no ‘earning capacity’ . . . or relying on earning capacity would not be consistent with the children’s best interest. . . .”’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[a]s long as ability and opportunity to earn exist

2014For example, “where the payor parent loses his or her job and seeks a reduction in court-ordered support based on the changed circumstances of lack of income, it will be the payor parent, as moving party, who bears the burden of showing a lack of ability and opportunity to earn income.” (Bardzik, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304 , original italics; see also id. at pp. 1308-1309; Eggers, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 701 .) In contrast, when the payee parent seeks to increase the amount of court-ordered support by imputing to the payor parent a greater income than the court previously had order

2014For example, “where the payor parent loses his or her job and seeks a reduction in court-ordered support based on the changed circumstances of lack of income, it will be the payor parent, as moving party, who bears the burden of showing a lack of ability and opportunity to earn income.” (Bardzik, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304 , original italics; see also id. at pp. 1308-1309; Eggers, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 701 .) In contrast, when the payee parent seeks to increase the amount of court-ordered support by imputing to the payor parent a greater income than the court previously had order

2005This court affirmed the imputation of income based on the father’s earning capacity determined by his income from his former position, ignoring his voluntary change of profession: “A parent’s motivation for reducing available income is irrelevant when the ability and opportunity to adequately and reasonably provide for the child are present. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1218.) In re Marriage of Ilas (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1630 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 ] (Ilas), where the father voluntarily left his employment to become a medical student, is to the same effect.

2005This court affirmed the imputation of income based on the father’s earning capacity determined by his income from his former position, ignoring his voluntary change of profession: “A parent’s motivation for reducing available income is irrelevant when the ability and opportunity to adequately and reasonably provide for the child are present. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1218.) In re Marriage of Ilas (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1630 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 345 ] (Ilas), where the father voluntarily left his employment to become a medical student, is to the same effect.

2005While there is no statutory definition of earning capacity, its meaning has been well established with a . . . test that was first articulated in In re Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 243 ] .... ‘Earning capacity is composed of (1) the ability to work . . . ; (2) the willingness to work . . . ; and (3) an opportunity to work which means an employer who is willing to hire. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” ( Vargas, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1125-1126, fn. omitted.) However, “[w]hen the payer is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may ap

2005While there is no statutory definition of earning capacity, its meaning has been well established with a . . . test that was first articulated in In re Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 243 ] .... ‘Earning capacity is composed of (1) the ability to work . . . ; (2) the willingness to work . . . ; and (3) an opportunity to work which means an employer who is willing to hire. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” ( Vargas, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1125-1126, fn. omitted.) However, “[w]hen the payer is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may ap

2001When the payor is unwilling to pay and the other two factors are present, the court may apply the earnings capacity standard to deter the shirking of one’s family obligations.” (In re Marriage of Regnery, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1372-1373.) Thus, “ ‘the only limitations against imputing income to an unemployed or underemployed parent is where the parent in fact has no “earning capacity” ... or relying on earning capacity would not be consistent with the children’s best interests.’ ” (In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 998 .) The “opportunity to work” exists when there i

1993(Cf. Pencovic v. Pencovic (1955) 45 Cal.2d 97 [ 287 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [the earning capacity standard is properly used when the paying parent willfully refuses to seek or accept gainful employment].) The court exercised that discretion here, and we find no abuse of discretion in applying the earnings capacity test here.

1993(Cf. Pencovic v. Pencovic (1955) 45 Cal.2d 97 [ 287 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [the earning capacity standard is properly used when the paying parent willfully refuses to seek or accept gainful employment].) The court exercised that discretion here, and we find no abuse of discretion in applying the earnings capacity test here.