You are here

Trapping BM in her lie

justmakingthebest's picture

So, in court BM stated she doesnt work.

We showed pictures from Facebook that said she got a job. She said that she volunteers.

Lawyer asked the name if the place she volunteers. It is different than the place she works. So he showed her a picture of her at work. She said she volunteers there too. 

Lawyer asked what she did there volunteering. She said weight loss counseling. Lawyer showed a picture of her standing in front of a counter of marijuana (whichever is still illegal in BM's state). BM said it was just for the picture. She isnt usually at that clinic. Then we showed a video from another day where I called the weed dispensary and asked for her. She was busy with a patient. BM still claims that it is all helping out and volunteering. 

Of course the judge just said for the lawyers to figure it out and didnt rule on it. Our lawyer is fighting for imputed income. 

Any other ideas for proof ? We know she works under the table so payroll records are only idea is subpoena her bank records. She is too lazy to keep up with just cash. She would deposit it so she can swipe her card and pay bills.


advice.only2's picture

The judge has already told you he doesn't care, that's why he didn't rule on it. You guys are doing everything right and the judge keeps shooting it down. This judge is showing you, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

ndc's picture

Your judge seems to be incredibly biased - either against your husband/his lawyer/fathers in general or in favor of BM/moms in general.  But if she's able bodied enough to volunteer at two separate places (which she's admitted), isn't she able bodied enough that they can impute income, whether you prove she's working and getting paid under the table or not?  Of course, it won't matter for this judge - your husband is probably just screwed no matter what.  I'll keep thinking positive thoughts for you, though!

ESMOD's picture

You don't have to prove she IS working to impute her income... just that she can work and is voluntarily choosing not to.

Wrong Way Diva's picture

The best you can hope for is that the judge will impute her an income based on work history, education, past job experience.   At least minimum wage, maybe more, and that is what they will base CS on.   Is she claiming she's disabled? 


ESMOD's picture

They likely won't add that "ft income" to her disability income.  They may impute that she could be working a full time minimum wage job.  People on disability CAN work by the way (I believe we have told you that previously).  There are limits to what they are supposed to earn and a transition period etc...

The bottom line is you have no real proof she is getting paid "under the table"... likely just making deposites of cash won't prove anything.. and if it is underthetable, that is likely how the place would pay her.

And.. she could claim she has stopped volunteering.. etc..

The best you can hope for is your lawyer pressing to impute income since she seems to be doing a lot of volunteer work and that seems to indicate she "could" hold a job.. but chooses not to.  How much that is?  I doubt it will make near the impact you think it will on the calculation.

advice.only2's picture

Judges tend to get very upset when they feel one parent is trying to disparage or wrongfully attack the other parent. They tend to lean more towards the other parent and reward them more in court.

Case in point: We had mandatory drug testing for meth mouth, we decided to use it one weekend. She refused to test so lost custody for that weekend. She flipped her sh*t and went and took a blood test that came back inconclusive, so the judge ordered another test at our expense...that one came back clean. The judge admonished my DH in court, ordered him to pay for the other drug test she failed and rewarded her three weekends in a row for visitation. We were within our rights, yet the courts felt what we were doing was picking on meth mouth. Be careful you guys don't end up coming across as doing the same.

tog redux's picture

In my experience, that's only if men "pick on" women in court. Women can do and say as they please and always are considered the victims. 

advice.only2's picture


Ursula's picture

These dispensaries are so highly regulated.  I find it hard to believe their could be an employee being paid under the table for that.  How do you knowi it's under the table?  Maybe force her to provide a w2 in January?

tog redux's picture

Yeah, no one in a medical marijuana dispensary is getting paid under the table or volunteering, for sure.

justmakingthebest's picture

Soooo... I talked to the DEA in OK (which is the state she works in). They confirmed that she would have to be listed as an employee. There is no such things as "Volunteers" in this business, which is what I thought. This guy must have an ex like BM because I am emailing him all my info and he said he will send it to the licensing board and find out if she is listed and get back to me. So Yay!!!

I can send that to our attorney and save myself $$.

ESMOD's picture

Here are some Virginia cases that relate to decisions on imputed income.. some actually involve people on and claiming disability.  That is not the only factor considered.. for example one judge wouldn't imput to a woman's former earning because she now had full time custody of kids and the demands of that would prevent it.. (maybe younger kids.. idk) but there were a couple of cases where it was imputed.. even on people with disabilities.  So.. I'm SURE your lawyer already has info like this but..


justmakingthebest's picture

Unless she is lying about her ability to work and defrauding the social security disablity system.

Also, we know she is working full time because she bitches about it online all the freaking time. It was just that in court she is saying she "volunteers" there, not getting paid. 

tog redux's picture

Can you blow her in to disability? Will they investigate themselves if they get a tip that someone is working?

justmakingthebest's picture

We did that today and also reported her to the DEA. Someone will find out something. I am so sick of BM's shit.

Livingoutloud's picture

Pictures don’t mean anything. And if she is on disability, her ability to work as if she wasn’t on disability is irrelevant. She could work part time while on disability. I doubt she works full time under the table but if she does, it’s hard to prove. Don’t waste your time

thinkthrice's picture

Is phoning it in and will no matter what will rule:



are there any online reviews of this judge that say he/she is father unfriendly?

justmakingthebest's picture

I couldn't find any reviews for any judges in Kansas other than Supreme Court...

notsurehowtodeal's picture

Dispensaries are highly regulated. I don't think very many of them are paying someone under the table - they don't need to. Most of them do well enough they have no reason to try and avoid the costs of regular employees.

What does your lawyer think about this? Does he think subpoenaing her bank or other financial records is worth it? What about a private investigator? They could get way more information than you can.

Also, you need to be careful about your involvement in investigating her. You don't want blow back if she finds out what you are doing. I hope you blocked your number when you called the business.

Every time you talk about her working in a dispensary, you mention that it is illegal in her state. That is true - but she is working in a state where it is legal. The fact that it is illegal in her state does not matter.

I get your frustration over this - especially when it can make such a difference in the amount of child support you are paying. But you are spending a lot of time and emotion in a fight that may not be worth it.


justmakingthebest's picture

$8,000 per year is a lot of money to me. Even if it costs that much to find out, that saves us 3 years worth of an extra $8,000 in CS.

That is the kind of shit that drives me nuts. I would like to be able to afford cars for my kids in the next few years. $8,000 extra into our house would cover teenagers cars. $8,000 would make one hell of a vacation. 

That is $8,000 per year of her scamming my husband and it pisses me the hell off. 

still learning's picture

Since she has the ability to work/volunteer her income should be imputed. If BM has made a recorded statement about "volunteering" at a dispensary and you know that she is receiving money under the table, file a complaint with the local BBB and with the IRS. Also report her to social security for possible fraud. She is the one saying she is volunteering for no money so let her prove it.  

If she is the manager/payroll and paying herself under the table w/out taking out payroll taxes, big no no.  Even if she was working in trade for pot there would would still be taxes to consider. It sure would harsh on her mellow to have the pot shop investigated due to illegal business practices, and then her boss finding out that it was all because of her.  


justmakingthebest's picture

We have reported it all to social security- along with pictures, video phone calls and her facebook statements about work.

We have also reported it to the medical marijuana licensing board and the DEA- who have said that they will get back to me and will open an inquiry to see if she is lying to them. 

ESMOD's picture

Who gave you that difference in cs. I looked up ks and increasing bms NET income from 1k to 4k only made a difference of about 200 dollars.   Is this a number your lawyer gave you?

justmakingthebest's picture


ESMOD's picture

Are you positive that the numbers aren't swapped somehow?

I mean.. right now she is the custodial parent and he pays 1000ish/month.  If she were to "earn" 48K a year then it would take ~$600 of parental financial obligation and switch it from him to her.  That is more obligation than he... the non-custodial parent would be left with.  Does he earn a LOT less than 48K a year?

It doesn't seem reasonable that the non-custodial would be paying in the neighborhood of 400 while the CP have $600 of burden shifted to her.

something in those calculations just seems off I would expect the NCP obligation to be naturally higher due to the fact that they aren't caring for the child full time.

justmakingthebest's picture

It means that BM will finally be factored into financial support of her own kid instead of it being 100% my husband. It is a percentage of income state. He still will pay CS just less because now she will contribute.