If you are in the middle of a child support dispute in Florida — whether you are fighting to modify an existing order, responding to a modification request, or challenging how your income is being calculated — the stakes could not be higher. Child support affects your finances, your daily life, and, most importantly, your children. That is why having a knowledgeable Tampa divorce lawyer in your corner is so important. At The McKinney Law Group, we closely follow the latest developments in Florida family law, and a 2023 appellate decision out of Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal is one that every Florida parent dealing with child support should understand.
The case — Lemoine v. Jackson — may not have made national headlines, but its implications for anyone navigating Tampa family law are significant. It addresses one of the most frequently disputed issues in child support proceedings: what happens when a court believes a parent is earning less than they are capable of earning? Can the court simply assume an income and calculate support based on that assumption? And if so, what evidence is actually required to justify that assumption?
The answer, as the Fifth District made clear, is that Florida courts cannot simply impute income based on what someone used to earn years ago. The legal standard requires current, specific, real-world evidence. Understanding that standard could make a meaningful difference in your case.
Background: What Is Income Imputation and Why Does It Come Up in Child Support Cases?
Before diving into the Lemoine v. Jackson ruling itself, it helps to understand the concept at the center of the dispute: income imputation.
In Florida, child support is calculated using a formula set out in Florida Statute § 61.30. That formula takes both parents’ incomes into account and produces a support obligation based on the combined amount and each parent’s share of it. The more a parent earns, the more they are expected to contribute to child support.
The system works reasonably well when both parents are employed and earning what they are genuinely capable of earning. But what happens when one parent voluntarily reduces their income — by quitting a high-paying job, working part-time instead of full-time, or choosing a lower-paying career path — specifically to reduce their child support obligation? Florida law has a mechanism to address exactly this scenario: income imputation.
When a court finds that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, it can impute income to that parent — meaning it treats the parent as if they were earning a certain amount, even if they are not actually earning it. The imputed income is then used in the child support calculation rather than the parent’s actual, lower income.
Income imputation is meant to prevent manipulation of the system. It ensures that a parent cannot simply choose to earn less in order to lower their support obligation while their children bear the financial consequences. In theory, it is a fair and practical tool. In practice, however, the rules governing how imputation works — and what evidence is required to justify it — are technical, precise, and frequently litigated. Lemoine v. Jackson is a perfect illustration of why.
The Case at a Glance: What Happened in Lemoine v. Jackson?
The dispute between Myrielle Lemoine and Kevin Jackson began as a post-judgment paternity case — meaning it arose after a court had already established paternity and issued an original child support order, and one or both parties were now seeking to change that order based on changed circumstances.
Both parents filed motions to modify child support. Kevin Jackson argued that the existing order no longer reflected financial reality and sought a downward modification in his obligations or an upward modification in Lemoine’s. Myrielle Lemoine also sought a modification, presumably arguing that her own financial circumstances warranted a change.
The trial court sided largely with Jackson. It found that both parties had experienced a substantial change in income — the threshold required to justify any modification of child support in Florida. It also found that Lemoine had been voluntarily underemployed since at least 2014, meaning she was earning less than she was capable of earning by choice. Based on that finding, the court imputed $160,000 in annual income to Lemoine for the period from her last child support payment in 2015 all the way through December 18, 2019.
Here is where the problem arose: the $160,000 figure was based entirely on what Lemoine had earned back in 2012. The trial court used her income from eleven years earlier as the basis for what it imputed to her across a nearly five-year span — without requiring Jackson to present any evidence about whether jobs paying $160,000 per year were actually available to Lemoine during that time period, given her qualifications, field, experience, and location.
Lemoine appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court had overstepped.
What the Court Decided — and the Legal Standard That Governs Income Imputation
The appellate court’s decision in Lemoine v. Jackson was nuanced. It did not simply reverse everything the trial court did. Instead, it affirmed some rulings while reversing others — and the distinction is instructive.
What the Court Affirmed
The Fifth District upheld the trial court’s finding that Lemoine’s underemployment was voluntary. This part of the ruling was supported by what the court called “competent, substantial evidence” in the record — meaning there was enough credible evidence before the trial judge to justify that conclusion. The appeals court also affirmed that a substantial change in the parties’ incomes had occurred, validating the general basis for modifying the child support order.
What the Court Reversed
Where the trial court went wrong — and where the Fifth District drew a clear line — was in the imputation of $160,000 in annual income to Lemoine from 2015 through 2019. The problem was not that imputation itself was inappropriate. The problem was that Jackson had not met his legal burden of proof.
Florida law requires the party seeking to impute income to present evidence of actual, available jobs — not simply point to what the other parent used to earn years ago. Past earnings alone do not satisfy the legal standard.
Under Florida Statute § 61.30(2)(b)1., the party seeking imputation of income bears the burden of presenting competent, substantial evidence of two distinct things:
- That the unemployment or underemployment is voluntary; and
- The amount and source of the imputed income — through evidence of income from available employment for which the party is suitably qualified by education, experience, current licensure, or geographic location.
Jackson satisfied the first requirement: the record supported a finding that Lemoine was voluntarily underemployed. But he failed entirely on the second. He offered no evidence of what jobs were available to Lemoine during the 2015–2019 imputation period — jobs that she was actually qualified to perform and that paid at or near $160,000 per year. Instead, he relied solely on what she had earned in 2012.
The appellate court was unequivocal in its rejection of this approach. Citing prior decisions including Gillespie v. Holdsworth (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) and Jorgensen v. Tagarelli (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), the court reaffirmed that a party seeking imputation must show both that the parent is employable and that jobs are actually available. A parent’s work history, standing alone, is simply not enough.
The case was remanded — sent back to the trial court — for a recalculation of child support for the 2015–2019 period, this time without imputing the $160,000 income figure that had not been properly supported by evidence.
Why This Ruling Matters for Florida Parents
You might be wondering: this was a case involving two specific people in Seminole County. Why should it matter to me, going through a child support dispute in the Tampa Bay area?
The answer is that appellate decisions like Lemoine v. Jackson shape how trial courts across Florida — including those in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and surrounding counties — are expected to apply the law. When the Fifth District Court of Appeal says that a certain type of evidence is required to justify income imputation, that is a signal to every family law judge in Florida about what the rules actually require.
More practically, this ruling is important because income imputation is one of the most commonly disputed issues in child support cases. It comes up whenever one parent believes the other is earning less than they should be — and it comes up in both initial support determinations and in modification proceedings. If you are involved in any of the following situations, the Lemoine v. Jackson standard is directly relevant to your case:
- You are seeking to modify child support and believe the other parent is voluntarily underemployed
- You are defending against a modification request that includes claims about your earning capacity
- You are going through an initial child support determination and there is a dispute about one parent’s income
- You are involved in a paternity case where child support is being set or modified
- You believe income was imputed to you at a prior hearing without proper supporting evidence
In any of these situations, understanding the evidentiary requirements — what the other side actually has to prove — could be the difference between a fair outcome and one that does not reflect reality.
Practical Takeaways: What This Ruling Means for You
Every child support case is unique, and the right strategy depends on the specific facts of your situation. That said, the Lemoine v. Jackson decision offers several practical lessons that are broadly applicable to anyone navigating a child support dispute in Florida.
If You Are Seeking to Have Income Imputed to the Other Parent
If you believe the other parent is voluntarily earning less than they are capable of — and you want the court to calculate support based on a higher income — you need to build a strong evidentiary record. That means more than simply pointing to what the other parent used to earn.
- Gather evidence of current job listings in the other parent’s field, in your geographic area, that match their qualifications and pay at or near the income level you are seeking to impute.
- Obtain documentation of the other parent’s education, professional licenses, certifications, and work history — and connect that documentation to specific, currently available employment opportunities.
- Consider engaging a vocational expert who can testify about employment availability and earning potential in the relevant field and location.
- Do not rely solely on past tax returns or prior earnings. Historical income is relevant context, but it does not substitute for evidence of what is actually available now.
- Work with a Florida family law attorney who understands the evidentiary burden and can help you build a case that satisfies it.
If Income Is Being Imputed to You
If the other parent — or their attorney — is asking the court to treat you as if you earn more than you actually do, you have both the right and the ability to challenge that request. The burden of proof rests with them, not you.
- Document your actual employment situation thoroughly: your job search efforts, applications, interviews, and any offers you have received or declined.
- Keep records of any circumstances that genuinely affect your earning capacity — health issues, childcare responsibilities, gaps in licensure, geographic limitations, or industry downturns in your field.
- If the other party is relying on outdated income information, point that out clearly. The relevant question is what jobs are available to you now, not what you earned years ago.
- Challenge any vocational assessment or income evidence that does not account for the actual job market in your area and your specific qualifications.
- Work with a Tampa divorce lawyer who can cross-examine the other side’s witnesses and highlight the gaps in their evidentiary record.
If You Are Seeking to Modify an Existing Child Support Order
Whether you are the payor or the recipient, modifications to child support require showing a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances. Lemoine v. Jackson confirms that income-related modifications are closely scrutinized — and that courts will not simply accept assumptions about what someone should be earning.
- Document the change in your own income thoroughly, with tax returns, pay stubs, employer letters, or business financial records.
- If you are claiming the other parent’s income has changed, be prepared to back that claim up with evidence — not just suspicion.
- Understand that courts will look at whether changes in income were voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary pay cut or career change will be viewed differently than a layoff or medical leave.
- Be aware that retroactive modifications to child support are generally only available from the date the modification was requested — timing matters.
Documentation Is Everything
If there is one overarching lesson from Lemoine v. Jackson, it is this: in child support cases, documentation is everything. The difference between winning and losing an income imputation argument is often whether one party has done the hard work of gathering specific, current, credible evidence — and whether the other party has been diligent enough to identify and challenge the weaknesses in that evidence.
This is not the kind of case where you want to go in unprepared or represent yourself. The legal standards are precise, the stakes are real, and the outcome will affect your family for years to come.
A Closer Look at Florida’s Child Support Framework
To fully appreciate what the court did in Lemoine v. Jackson, it helps to understand a bit more about how Florida’s child support system works — and why income imputation exists as a tool within that system.
How Florida Calculates Child Support
Florida uses an income shares model for calculating child support. The basic idea is that a child should receive the same proportion of parental income that they would have received if the family had remained together. To accomplish this, the court looks at both parents’ net incomes, combines them, and then determines each parent’s proportional share of the total support obligation.
Net income, for purposes of the formula, takes into account not just wages but also income from self-employment, rental properties, dividends, business income, and other sources. It also accounts for allowable deductions like taxes, health insurance premiums, and mandatory union dues. The resulting figure — each parent’s net income — is what drives the child support calculation.
This is why disputes about income are so consequential. Even relatively small differences in imputed versus actual income can translate into meaningfully different monthly support obligations — obligations that persist for years.
When Can Child Support Be Modified?
Once a child support order is in place, it does not automatically adjust as circumstances change. To modify it, the requesting parent must show that there has been a substantial change in circumstances that was not contemplated when the original order was entered. Under Florida law, a change of 15% or more in the calculated support obligation generally qualifies as substantial.
Common bases for modification include: a significant increase or decrease in either parent’s income, a change in the child’s needs or living arrangements, a change in health insurance coverage, or a child’s emancipation. What does not qualify is a parent’s voluntary decision to earn less — which is precisely where the voluntary underemployment doctrine, and income imputation, come into play.
The Role of Voluntary Underemployment
Florida courts are realistic about the fact that some parents will try to game the system by earning less than they are capable of earning. The voluntary underemployment doctrine is the law’s response to that reality. But as Lemoine v. Jackson makes clear, the doctrine is not a blank check — it requires evidence, and that evidence must meet a specific legal standard.
Importantly, not every case of underemployment is voluntary. A parent who loses their job due to layoffs, illness, or economic downturns is not voluntarily underemployed. A parent who takes time off to care for a young child or a sick family member may not be voluntarily underemployed. A parent who has been unable to find work in their field despite genuine efforts is not voluntarily underemployed. These distinctions matter enormously in litigation, and a skilled Florida divorce attorney can help you articulate them clearly.
Common Mistakes Parents Make in Child Support Disputes
At The McKinney Law Group, we have seen firsthand how certain missteps can cost parents dearly in child support proceedings. Here are some of the most common mistakes — and how to avoid them.
Underestimating the Importance of Evidence
As Lemoine v. Jackson illustrates, courts are not simply going to take a party’s word for what someone earns or could earn. Evidence matters. Whether you are the one seeking imputation or the one defending against it, you need to come to court prepared with documentation, records, and — when appropriate — expert testimony. Attorneys who walk into court without sufficient evidentiary preparation are setting their clients up for outcomes that do not reflect the true facts.
Waiting Too Long to File for Modification
Child support modifications in Florida generally take effect from the date the petition is filed, not the date the circumstances changed. If your income drops significantly and you wait months before filing for modification, you may be responsible for the higher support amount throughout that waiting period. If you believe your circumstances warrant a modification, the time to act is now — not later.
Assuming the Other Side Will Play Fair
In a perfect world, both parents would be transparent about their income and cooperate to reach an arrangement that is fair to everyone, especially the children. In practice, disputes over income and earning capacity can become contentious, and some parties — or their attorneys — will present information in the light most favorable to their position. That is not necessarily improper, but it does mean you need an advocate who is paying close attention and who knows how to identify and challenge questionable evidence.
Going Without Legal Representation
Florida family law is complex, and child support cases that involve income imputation are among the most technically demanding. Going it alone — or relying on advice from friends and family — leaves you at a real disadvantage. The other party’s attorney, if they have one, will know the rules, the evidentiary standards, and the procedural requirements. You deserve the same level of representation.
Why The McKinney Law Group Is the Right Choice for Your Child Support Case
Navigating a child support modification, an income imputation dispute, or any aspect of Tampa family law requires more than just knowing the statutes. It requires experience with how Florida courts actually apply those statutes, the ability to build a thorough evidentiary record, and the judgment to know when to negotiate and when to fight.
At The McKinney Law Group, we bring all of that to every client we represent. We are a Tampa-based Florida family law firm with deep experience in child support litigation, divorce, paternity matters, and post-judgment modifications. We understand that behind every legal case is a family — real people dealing with real stress — and we approach every matter with both the strategic rigor it deserves and the empathy it requires.
Cases like Lemoine v. Jackson remind us why preparation, evidence, and a thorough understanding of the applicable law are not optional. They are essential. When income imputation is at issue, the difference between a properly supported argument and an improperly supported one can mean thousands of dollars per year in child support — over multiple years. That is not a difference you want to leave to chance.
We regularly help clients throughout the Tampa Bay area — including Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Manatee counties — with matters including:
- Initial child support determinations in divorce and paternity cases
- Child support modification proceedings
- Income imputation disputes — both pursuing and defending against imputation claims
- Enforcement of child support orders
- Post-judgment modifications of parenting plans and time-sharing arrangements
- Appeals of trial court rulings in family law matters
We know that if you are reading this, you are probably dealing with something difficult. Child support disputes are stressful, and the legal process can feel overwhelming — especially when you are also managing your work, your home, and your relationship with your children. Our job is to take as much of that weight off your shoulders as possible, keep you informed every step of the way, and fight to get you an outcome that is fair and sustainable.
Speak with a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group Today
Whether you are facing a child support modification, dealing with an income imputation dispute, or simply trying to understand your rights under Florida law, the experienced team at The McKinney Law Group is here to help. We offer confidential consultations, and we will take the time to listen to your situation, explain your options, and help you understand what to expect.
Do not navigate Florida’s child support system alone. The legal standards are complex, the evidence requirements are specific, and the outcome will have lasting consequences for you and your children. A Tampa divorce lawyer from The McKinney Law Group will stand by your side every step of the way — from your first consultation through final resolution.
At The McKinney Law Group, we believe every Florida family deserves clear guidance, honest advice, and fearless representation. Let us put our experience to work for you.
Contact The McKinney Law Group today to schedule your confidential consultation. We are proud to serve clients throughout Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and the surrounding Tampa Bay area. Your family’s future is worth fighting for — and we are ready to fight alongside you.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.