ONCALL
...Family Law
......Child Support
 15 Cards On This Topic:
  • The depreciation on a non-income producing asset is properly disregarded in c/s calculation.
  • Children's special needs justified an upward deviation from guideline.
  • H’s act of voluntarily agreeing to pay above-guideline c/s to a child of a former marriage to intentionally reduce his c/s to his current children warranted an upward deviation from guideline.
  • Summary adjudication properly granted on the issue of C's incapacity under FC §3910 where, although he sustained serious injuries in a motorcycle accident, he could perform the same work he was doing prior to the accident.
  • Fam. Code §4062 and §4063 are irrelevant where the parties stipulated to split uncovered medical expenses.
  • H's trust properly considered as income available for child support, regardless of spendthrift clause.
  • Garnished court-ordered child support paid to benefit children outside a family is properly treated as income in determining a family's eligibility for CalWORKs cash aid.
  • A court order modifying c/s retroactive to any time period before the filing date of a modification motion violates the Family Code.
  • Where there is no evidence of work-related child care costs, the court has no duty to impose such costs as a c/s add-on.
  • A debtor-spouse does not necessarily have unclean hands for failing to pay c/s.
  • Trial ct. improperly placed the burden of justifying a guideline award on Mother, and improperly relied on her historical expenses, rather than on F’s disposable income and lifestyle, to determine C’s reasonable needs.
  • Gifts mother received from friend, including cash payments, were not a regular, recurrent monthly benefit representing income for purposes of calculating father's c/s obligation.
  • H’s reduced income did not constitute a material change in circumstances in light of his extreme wealth; what constitutes a change of circumstances.
  • Party moving to modify c/s bears burden of showing child’s needs have decreased.
  • The court imputed unreasonably low rate of return to H’s assets.


    •