In In re Marriage of Mosley (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1375, the wife had a law degree from a prestigious school, where she had served as editor of the law review, and had worked for a very prestigious law firm prior to choosing to devote her full-time efforts to raising the couple's children. As of the time the parties divorced, she had not practiced law in nearly a decade. The court nonetheless concluded it was proper to impute income to her based upon her earning capacity. But the court did not decide it was proper to impute earnings based upon the mere fact the wife had once earned an income. Instead, what the court found to be sufficient was expert opinion evidence addressing the specific issue of her capacity to earn income in the future: As the court noted: "Paul provided a vocational evaluation summary demonstrating that Dawn had a substantial earning capacity. He also provided the testimony of the vocational expert who had prepared the summary, and who had interviewed Dawn as part of the evaluation process. The vocational expert testified that Dawn, as an attorney, had an approximate earning capacity of $ 95,000 per year to start, although it might take her about 26 weeks to find a position. He also testified that Dawn could earn $ 16 to $ 20 per hour as a paralegal." (In re Marriage of Mosley, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391.)