Can Utah courts impute income to parents attending college full-time? Mancil v. Smith Explained

In Mancil v. Smith, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether courts may impute income to a parent pursuing a bachelor’s degree for child support purposes. This case establishes important precedent regarding the scope of educational exemptions from income imputation.

Background and Facts

Gerald Smith and Dawn Mancil divorced in 1995, with Smith ordered to pay child support when employed or no longer attending school. Smith initially worked at Enrich Corporation but quit in 1997 to attend a technology school for the deaf in New York to obtain a bachelor’s degree. The Office of Recovery Services intervened and sought child support modification. The trial court imputed income of $1,040 per month to Smith based on his employment history, rejecting his argument that college attendance exempted him from income imputation.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: whether pursuing a bachelor’s degree constitutes “career or occupational training to establish basic job skills” under Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-7.5(7)(d)(iii); whether the trial court made adequate findings for income imputation; and whether Smith’s Social Security disability determination constituted a substantial change of circumstances justifying modification.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that a bachelor’s degree does not qualify as “basic job skills” training. Analyzing the plain meaning of the statutory terms, the court determined that “basic” means “constituting or serving as the basis or starting point,” and that a four-year degree provides opportunities “far beyond” what is needed as a starting point above minimum wage employment. The court emphasized that Utah’s policy is to maximize child support from both parents and that contemporary students can work while attending college.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that higher education pursuits generally will not excuse parents from child support obligations. The court distinguished between short-term vocational training and four-year degrees, suggesting that brief, job-specific training might qualify for exemption while bachelor’s degree programs will not. Practitioners should note that the court’s analysis focused on the level of skills being developed rather than the duration or legitimacy of the educational program.