The applicant father brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in a shared custody arrangement.
The respondent mother argued that the applicant was intentionally underemployed and that income should be imputed to him at a higher level.
Applying the test from AMD v. AJP, the court found the applicant was intentionally underemployed and imputed income of $75,000 to him.
However, given factual disputes regarding standards of living and the imminent trial process, the court declined to make interim or retroactive child support orders.
The issues were held to be more appropriately determined at trial.
