In Re The Parentage Of N.a.r.p., Holiday Palfreyman v. James M. Robles
75273-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Parents: James Robles (father) and Holly Palfreyman (mother) share a child born in 2012; initial 2013 order set James's gross monthly income at $21,540 and child support at $1,751.
- James’ work hours and income fell sharply after 2012 (FedEx hours/pay dropped to ~20–24 hours/month despite a contractual minimum of 74 paid credit hours/month); he also retired from the Air National Guard.
- In 2015 James moved to reduce child support; commissioner found him voluntarily underemployed and imputed income based on 100 flying hours/month, producing a large imputed income and reducing support to $1,258.
- On revision, the superior court found James “gainfully employed on a full-time basis” at $60,000/year, declined to impute income (absent a finding he purposely underemployed to avoid support), and reduced support to $459/month.
- Court made no findings on attorney fees below; mother appealed contesting (1) the refusal to impute income, (2) exclusion of bonus/dividend income, and (3) attorney‑fee findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Palfreyman) | Defendant's Argument (Robles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in refusing to impute income under RCW 26.19.071(6) | Court must impute income to a voluntarily underemployed parent unless that parent is working full time; James is voluntarily underemployed, so income should be imputed | James is gainfully employed full time; no evidence he purposely reduced hours to avoid support | Court did not properly support its conclusion James is full‑time; remanded for findings about customary full‑time hours/salary for his job and whether imputation is warranted |
| Definition/assessment of “full‑time” for imputation | Full‑time is judged by customary hours for the occupation; commissioner’s imputation appropriate given past hours | $60,000/year constitutes full‑time gainful employment for him | Trial court relied only on income figure without findings about customary pilot hours/salary; remand required to supply findings |
| Inclusion of bonus and dividend income in income calculation | Bonus and dividends must be included in income; bonuses are includable unless shown nonrecurring | Bonus may be nonrecurring and thus excludable; dividends conceded should be included | Remand: court must expressly consider and find whether bonus is recurring; dividend income must be included in calculations |
| Attorney fees and findings on need/ability to pay | Commissioner’s $600 fee award and denial of fees on revision lacked findings on need/ability to pay; requires remand | No adequate findings were made below to deny fees | Reversed on this point; remand for findings on Holly’s need and James’s ability to pay and for fees on the revision motion; appellate fee request deferred to trial court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Pollard, 99 Wn. App. 48 (2000) (assessing voluntary underemployment and imputation)
- In re Marriage of Schumacher, 100 Wn. App. 208 (2000) (full‑time employment judged by customary hours in occupation)
- In re Marriage of Scanlon, 109 Wn. App. 167 (2001) (income calculation must include interest/dividends)
- In re Marriage of McCausland, 159 Wn.2d 607 (2007) (party seeking modification bears burden to prove changed circumstances)