Income imputed to recipient????

Does anyone know of any case where the recipient of child support has
had income attributed to her... In this case there are regular and
significant cash deposits made into her bank account amounting to over
250k over 3 years... from her wealthy boyfriend... Can this amount be
attributed to her as income for the purposes of the sharing of the
private schooling, extra-curricular? Does anyone know of precedent
cases that would be useful here?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Does anyone know of any case where the recipient of child support has
had income attributed to her... In this case there are regular and
significant cash deposits made into her bank account amounting to over
250k over 3 years... from her wealthy boyfriend... Can this amount be
attributed to her as income for the purposes of the sharing of the
private schooling, extra-curricular? Does anyone know of precedent
cases that would be useful here?

The CS guidelines are constructed in such a way that the calculation
methodology always awards very close to the same amount for the NCP to pay
regardless of the income for the CP. Any CS modification determination
should focus on how the NCP's income is treated in a hearing, not the income
(imputed or not) for the CP.

On Sep 27, 10:54?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

Does anyone know of any case where the recipient of child support has
had income attributed to her... In this case there are regular and
significant cash deposits made into her bank account amounting to over
250k over 3 years... from her wealthy boyfriend... Can this amount be
attributed to her as income for the purposes of the sharing of the
private schooling, extra-curricular? Does anyone know of precedent
cases that would be useful here?

The CS guidelines are constructed in such a way that the calculation
methodology always awards very close to the same amount for the NCP to pay
regardless of the income for the CP. Any CS modification determination
should focus on how the NCP's income is treated in a hearing, not the income
(imputed or not) for the CP.

And some states dont even use the CP's income when determining CS to
begin with.

On Sep 27, 11:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

The CS guidelines are constructed in such a way that the calculation
methodology always awards very close to the same amount for the NCP to pay
regardless of the income for the CP. Any CS modification determination
should focus on how the NCP's income is treated in a hearing, not the income
(imputed or not) for the CP.

This is not true for Massachusetts. CS for my son, per MA guidelines,
goes from $171/week to $303/week depending on whether the CP's income
is viewed as $0 or $35K per year.

I don't know what state the OP is from and I realize many states don't
even count CP income, but at least for certain states the CP income
actual or attributed is very relevant.

However as an NCP court-veteran I can't imagine the courts viewing
"regular and significant cash deposits from a boyfriend" as income.
They would view it as a gift.

Don

On Sep 28, 10:39 am, don_1228 wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:



The CS guidelines are constructed in such a way that the calculation
methodology always awards very close to the same amount for the NCP to pay
regardless of the income for the CP. Any CS modification determination
should focus on how the NCP's income is treated in a hearing, not the income
(imputed or not) for the CP.

This is not true for Massachusetts. CS for my son, per MA guidelines,
goes from $171/week to $303/week depending on whether the CP's income
is viewed as $0 or $35K per year.

I don't know what state the OP is from and I realize many states don't
even count CP income, but at least for certain states the CP income
actual or attributed is very relevant.

However as an NCP court-veteran I can't imagine the courts viewing
"regular and significant cash deposits from a boyfriend" as income.
They would view it as a gift.

Don

I'm actually in Canada where cash from a boyfriend is also typically
considered a gift.... however, what if those deposits were regular...
montly and amount to over 100k per year? .... and what if suddenly
she's unemployed?... and what if she is not willing to prove that
she's actively looking for work?.... and what if she's living a very
high lifestyle based on those deposits and is claiming that now she
has no income and that I should have to pay the lion's share of what
we call "Section 7" or extra expenses, like private school and dance
class and tutoring, etc?

On Sep 28, 4:13 pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:39 am, don_1228 wrote:





On Sep 27, 11:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

The CS guidelines are constructed in such a way that the calculation
methodology always awards very close to the same amount for the NCP to pay
regardless of the income for the CP. Any CS modification determination
should focus on how the NCP's income is treated in a hearing, not the income
(imputed or not) for the CP.

This is not true for Massachusetts. CS for my son, per MA guidelines,
goes from $171/week to $303/week depending on whether the CP's income
is viewed as $0 or $35K per year.

I don't know what state the OP is from and I realize many states don't
even count CP income, but at least for certain states the CP income
actual or attributed is very relevant.

However as an NCP court-veteran I can't imagine the courts viewing
"regular and significant cash deposits from a boyfriend" as income.
They would view it as a gift.

Don

I'm actually in Canada where cash from a boyfriend is also typically
considered a gift.... however, what if those deposits were regular...
montly and amount to over 100k per year? .... and what if suddenly
she's unemployed?... and what if she is not willing to prove that
she's actively looking for work?.... and what if she's living a very
high lifestyle based on those deposits and is claiming that now she
has no income and that I should have to pay the lion's share of what
we call "Section 7" or extra expenses, like private school and dance
class and tutoring, etc?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If she has a wealthy boyfriend it doesn't relieve the biological
father from what the judge said is his monthly obligation. The court
doesn't view a boyfriend/girlfriend's wife/husband's income relevant
because the child is not genetically linked to the 3rd party,
therefore; the child is not the responsibility of the 3rd party. Why
don't the the two PARENTS, who are both adults, get together and work
something out. How do you know what her bank deposits and statement
are?