What is the test for imputing income on the basis of under employment or unemployment?

In the Drygala v. Pauli case the court set out a three-part test to determine whether income should be imputed on the basis of under-employment or unemployment as follows: 1. Is the spouse intentionally under-employed or unemployed? 2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs? 3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed in the circumstances?

Therefore, the first part of the test in Drygala v. Pauli is to ask whether the payor is intentionally under-employed or unemployed. The court stated that there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed; the payor is intentionally under-employed if he or she chooses to earn less than what he or she is capable of earning. The court must look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable.

The second part of the test in Drygala v. Pauli requires the court to determine if the payor is intentionally under-employed, is this by virtue of his/or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child of the marriage or reasonable health needs?