Can imputed income be based on capital available to a parent, not just earned income?

Yes, a court is not limited to looking only at a parent's employment or business earnings when assessing income for child support; it can also consider capital and property genuinely available to the parent, such as significant savings, investments, or other assets that could reasonably be used or invested to generate income, even if the parent has chosen not to do so. This typically comes up where a parent has substantial assets sitting idle, such as a large sum in a low-interest account or an unused income-producing property, while claiming a low income for support purposes.

The analysis generally asks whether it would be reasonable to expect the parent to use that capital productively, considering factors like the parent's age, the purpose and accessibility of the asset, and whether using it would be a realistic and fair expectation given the overall circumstances, rather than assuming every asset must be immediately converted into income. Courts are generally cautious about ordering a parent to liquidate a genuinely necessary asset, like their primary home, purely to generate support income. Because this depends heavily on the nature and purpose of the specific asset, detailed evidence about what capital exists and how it's currently being used matters.