QUESTIONS:
Do I pay half of any child care costs my ex incurs? Or just work-related child care costs incurred?
Are “occupational training”-related child care costs something I have to share too? And does “occupational training” include a bachelor’s degree?
ANSWERS:
You and your ex are required to share equally the costs of:
1) work-related child care; and
2) occupational training-related child care either of you incur,
but neither of you has to pay for half of any child care that the other incurs if the child care is not work-related and occupational training-related.
Utah Code § 78B-12-214. Child care expenses — Expenses not incurred.
(1) The child support order shall require that each parent share equally the reasonable work-related child care expenses of the parents.
(2)
(a) If an actual expense for child care is incurred, a parent shall begin paying his share on a monthly basis immediately upon presentation of proof of the child care expense, but if the child care expense ceases to be incurred, that parent may suspend making monthly payment of that expense while it is not being incurred, without obtaining a modification of the child support order.
(b)
(i) In the absence of a court order to the contrary, a parent who incurs child care expense shall provide written verification of the cost and identity of a child care provider to the other parent upon initial engagement of a provider and thereafter on the request of the other parent.
(ii) In the absence of a court order to the contrary, the parent shall notify the other parent of any change of child care provider or the monthly expense of child care within 30 calendar days of the date of the change.
(3) In addition to any other sanctions provided by the court, a parent incurring child care expenses may be denied the right to receive credit for the expenses or to recover the other parent’s share of the expenses if the parent incurring the expenses fails to comply with Subsection (2)(b).
Utah Code § 78B-12-215. Child care costs.
(1) The need to include child care costs in the child support order is presumed, if the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent, during extended parent-time, is working and actually incurring the child care costs.
(2) The need to include child care costs is not presumed, but may be awarded on a case-by-case basis, if the costs are related to the career or occupational training of the custodial parent, or if otherwise ordered by the court in the interest of justice.
(3) The court may impute a monthly obligation for child care costs when it imputes income to a parent who is providing child care for the minor child of both parties so that the parties are not incurring child care costs for the child. Any monthly obligation imputed under this section shall be applied towards any actual child care costs incurred within the same month for the child.
So what does “occupational training” mean? Utah tends to define the term by what it does not mean:
See Mancil v. Smith, 18 P.3d 509, 511 (Utah Ct.App. 2000)
¶ 9 We first address whether the trial court correctly determined that Smith’s pursuit of a bachelor’s degree did not exempt him from having income imputed to him because such a course of higher education does not constitute “career or occupational training to establish basic job skills” under Utah Code Ann. § 78–45–7.5(7)(d)(iii)* (Supp.2000). This is a question of statutory construction, reviewed for correctness. See Wells v. Wells, 871 P.2d 1036, 1038 (Utah Ct.App.), cert. denied, 244 Utah Adv. Rep. 56 (1994).
*Utah Code § 78-45-7.5(d)(iii) no longer exists, but its provisions were incorporated into Utah Code § 78B-12-203(8)(d)(iii):
(d) Income may not be imputed if any of the following conditions exist and the condition is not of a temporary nature:
(i) the reasonable costs of child care for the parents’ minor children approach or equal the amount of income the custodial parent can earn;
(ii) a parent is physically or mentally unable to earn minimum wage;
(iii) a parent is engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills; or
(iv) unusual emotional or physical needs of a child require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.
Hill v. Hill, 869 P.2d 963, 965 n.1 (Utah Ct.App. 1994)
Mr. Hill also argues that even if he were voluntarily underemployed, it is improper to impute income to him because he is “a parent engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills.” Utah Code Ann. § 78–45–7.5(7)(d)(iii) (1992). The trial court held that Mr. Hill did not fit within this statute because he already had a bachelor’s degree, and was pursuing further education. We find no error in the court’s holding.
Husband is correct that Utah Code section 78B–12–203 precludes a trial court from imputing income to an individual who is “engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills,” Utah Code Ann. § 78B–12–203(7)(d)(iii), Husband is not in need of basic job skills training. In Mancil v. Smith, 2000 UT App 378, 18 P.3d 509, this court held that “the basic job skills training envisioned by the statute is training which can aid a person in achieving an income beyond the minimum wage job which can be had with no training at all, i.e., training for the ‘starting point’ on a ‘consecutive progressive’ career track.” Id. ¶ 15. The policy behind Utah’s alimony laws, “to enable the receiving spouse to maintain as nearly as possible the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and to prevent the spouse from becoming a public charge,” see Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139, ¶ 9, 233 P.3d 836 (internal quotation marks omitted), is not furthered by permitting the payor spouse to pursue unnecessary continuing education that precludes him from paying alimony. Cf. Mancil, 2000 UT App 378, ¶ 16, 18 P.3d 509 (holding that a parent could not avoid having income imputed to him while pursuing a four-year bachelor’s degree because such a degree was more education than necessary to acquire “basic job skills”). The trial court made specific findings with respect to Husband’s historical earnings, including his wages in the month before the parties’ separation. From those factual findings, it is apparent that Husband already possesses the education and training necessary to earn more than minimum wage. Consequently, the trial court did not err by imputing income to Husband despite his attendance at technical college.
Fish v. Fish, 242 P.3d 787, 792 (Utah Ct.App. 2010)
B. Husband’s Enrollment in Technical College Did Not Preclude the Trial Court from Imputing Income to Him.
¶ 18 Furthermore, Husband’s enrollment in technical college did not preclude the trial court from imputing income to him. While Husband is correct that Utah Code section 78B–12–203 precludes a trial court from imputing income to an individual who is “engaged in career or occupational training to establish basic job skills,” Utah Code Ann. § 78B–12–203(7)(d)(iii), Husband is not in need of basic job skills training. In Mancil v. Smith, 2000 UT App 378, 18 P.3d 509, this court held that “the basic job skills training envisioned by the statute is training which can aid a person in achieving an income beyond the minimum wage job which can be had with no training at all, i.e., training for the ‘starting point’ on a ‘consecutive progressive’ career track.” Id. ¶ 15. The policy behind Utah’s alimony laws, “to enable the receiving spouse to maintain as nearly as possible the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and to prevent the spouse from becoming a public charge,” see Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139, ¶ 9, 233 P.3d 836 (internal quotation marks omitted), is not furthered by permitting the payor spouse to pursue unnecessary continuing education that precludes him from paying alimony. Cf. Mancil, 2000 UT App 378, ¶ 16, 18 P.3d 509 (holding that a parent could not avoid having income imputed to him while pursuing a four-year bachelor’s degree because such a degree was more education than necessary to acquire “basic job skills”). The trial court made specific findings with respect to Husband’s historical earnings, including his wages in the month before the parties’ separation. From those factual findings, it is apparent that Husband already possesses the education and training necessary to earn more than minimum wage. Consequently, the trial court did not err by imputing income to Husband despite his attendance at technical college.
——————————————–
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277