Imputed Income in Michigan: When a Court Assigns You Earnings You Don't Have

Parents often learn about imputed income at the worst possible moment — reading a support recommendation that treats them as earning a salary they haven't seen in two years. Maybe the job ended, maybe you went part-time to cover childcare, maybe a health problem cut your hours. The paperwork says you make something you don't, and that number is not a typo — but it is also not unchallengeable.

What "imputed income" actually means

Michigan child support is calculated by formula. SCAO's Friend of the Court Bureau publishes the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual, and under MCL 552.605(2) a court must order the amount the formula produces unless it finds that applying the formula would be "unjust or inappropriate" — and then states, in writing or on the record, the formula amount, how the order deviates, and why. The manual now in effect took effect January 1, 2025.

"Income" under that formula is not limited to what actually hit your bank account. Section 2.01(G) of the 2025 manual provides that when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or has an unexercised ability to earn, that parent's income includes potential income — subject, in the manual's words, to that parent's actual ability.

Imputation is the formula's answer to a parent who could be earning more and isn't. The dispute is usually about whether that description fits.

A court cannot simply pick a number

Michigan caselaw permits imputing income when it is supported by adequate fact-finding that the parent has an actual ability and likelihood of earning the imputed income. Stallworth v Stallworth, 275 Mich App 282, 284-285; 738 NW2d 264 (2007); Olson v Olson, 189 Mich App 620, 622; 473 NW2d 772 (1991).

The manual also sets ceilings. Under Section 2.01(G)(1), imputed income generally should not exceed what it would have been without the reduction, cannot be based on more than a 40-hour work week, and cannot include potential overtime or shift premiums. Nor is imputation appropriate where a parent already works full time — 35 hours a week or more — and has declined additional hours.

Section 2.01(G)(2) then lists the factors, (a) through (k):

• Prior employment and earnings history, and why a job ended or changed

• Education, literacy, special skills and training

• Physical and mental disabilities affecting the ability to work or keep work

• Availability for work — excluding periods the parent could not work or seek work, such as hospitalization, incarceration, or debilitating illness

• Availability of work in the local area, prevailing local wage rates, and hours available

• Diligence in seeking appropriate employment

• Evidence the parent is able to earn the imputed amount

• Personal history — marital status, age, health, residence, means of support, criminal record, ability to drive and access to transportation

• Whether the children are in that parent's home, and the effect on earnings

• Whether income dropped significantly compared with the period before the initial complaint or the motion to modify

  
  

Section 2.01(G)(3) adds something people often miss: imputation may account for the costs of earning that potential income — childcare for the children the parents have in common, plus the taxes owed on the imputed amount.

What imputation is not for

It is not a shortcut around evidence. Section 2.01(G)(4) prohibits imputing income on generalized assumptions — full-time minimum wage, median income — and prohibits assuming an unexercised ability to earn where there is no information about the parent's actual ability. It also prohibits imputation where the court has not explained how each (G)(2) factor applies or stated that a factor does not apply. That is why the factors get addressed one at a time rather than in the aggregate.

Involuntary is different from voluntary. In Stallworth, the Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly used the defendant's criminal conviction as a reason to impute income: the conviction ended his elected office, an involuntary reduction rather than a maneuver to avoid support. Section 2.01(G)(4) carries the same principle, barring an inference of voluntary unemployment from the commission of a crime absent evidence it was committed to reduce income or avoid support.

Means-tested benefits are not income. Under Section 2.04(A), income does not include the value of benefits from means-tested sources. In Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189; 586 NW2d 883 (1998), the Michigan Supreme Court set aside an imputation to a parent whose only income was means-tested public assistance, holding that imputation must rest on an actual ability and likelihood of earning the amount imputed and that the required findings had not been made. That decision cited the Paternity Act provision then applicable, MCL 722.717(3); the parallel requirement for support orders now appears in MCL 552.605(2).

Incarceration is handled separately. Section 2.01(G) directs that incarceration generally not be treated as voluntary unemployment. Section 4.02 covers a parent who cannot pay because of disability, serious injury, debilitating illness, or incarceration; at 180 days or more of incarceration, MCL 552.517f governs, providing for abatement by operation of law with a presumption that the payer cannot pay, subject to a notice-and-objection process through the friend of the court.

What the record has to contain

Factor lists are answered with documents, not adjectives. The material bearing on the (G)(2) factors is specific: application and interview history, termination paperwork, medical documentation tying a condition to actual work restrictions, local postings and wage data for the occupation and area rather than statewide or national averages, and the childcare arithmetic for the schedule the imputed job would require.

Timing

Each support payment becomes a judgment as it comes due. MCL 552.603. Retroactive modification is permitted only for a period during which a modification petition is pending, and only back to the date notice of that petition was given to the other party — with narrow exceptions for ex parte interim and temporary orders, for court-approved agreements, and, under MCL 552.603b, where a party required to report income knowingly misreports it.

If a referee has issued a recommended order, a nearer deadline applies: an objection is filed not later than 21 days after service of a copy of that order. The SCAO forms are Objection to Referee's Recommended Order (FOC 68) and Motion Regarding Support (FOC 50).

What this means for you

• A recommendation built on imputed income is a position, not a verdict — it is subject to objection and review.

• The figure must be tied to evidence of an actual ability and likelihood of earning it, and is capped at a 40-hour week with no overtime or shift premiums.

• Losing income and giving it up are treated differently, and the cost of earning imputed income — childcare, taxes — is part of the analysis.

• Because retroactivity is limited, the timing of a motion affects how far back any change can reach.

  
  

Talk to a lawyer about your situation

If support in your case is being calculated on income you don't actually have — or if you believe the other parent is understating what they can earn — the analysis turns on the specific facts and the findings the court makes. Scozzari Law, PLLC handles family law and criminal defense matters in Kent County and throughout West Michigan. Call to arrange a consultation.

This article is general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Scozzari Law, PLLC. Michigan law changes, and how it applies depends entirely on the facts of your case. If you have a family law or criminal matter in Kent County or elsewhere in Michigan, talk to a lawyer about your specific situation.