Raising a child is a rewarding but costly endeavor that few people can afford to do alone. As such, if a couple with children divorces, the courts will often order one parent to pay child support to the other. Child support durations generally endure until children turn 18, but they can last longer in certain circumstances, like when a child still attends high school full-time. Recently, a California Court addressed what constitutes full-time attendance in a case in which the parties disputed whether the father had a duty to pay child support. If you need assistance with a child support matter, it is in your best interest to talk to a San Diego child support attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that a dissolution proceeding between the mother and the father was pending for two decades. In the interim, the Court granted the mother primary custody of the couple’s youngest child. Further, the Court ordered the father to pay $10,000 per month in child support. The child turned 18 in March 2020.

Allegedly, in September 2021, the father filed requests for orders, asking the Court to determine that his child support obligation ended and seeking a refund of overpaid support. The father based his requests on the fact that the child turned 18 in June 2020 and no longer attended high school full-time after that date. He also sought sanctions against the mother. The Court denied the father’s request to issue sanctions but granted his other requests, finding that as of July 2020, the child was no attended high school full-time. The mother appealed. Continue reading

In any family law case involving a child, the Courts must issue rulings that are in the child’s best interest. The best interest standard applies not only to matters in which child custody is at issue but also in cases in which child support obligations are being established or modified. If a Court fails to adhere to the best interest standard when making a child support ruling, its ruling may be vacated, as demonstrated in a recent California case. If you need assistance with a child support matter, it is prudent to speak to a dedicated San Diego child support attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the father has two children and that he paid their mother child support. In 2015, the father and the mother entered into a stipulated judgment that established their parental obligations. Among other things, it defined his monthly child support obligation. In 2021, the Department of Child Support filed an action to modify the father’s support obligation on the grounds that his income had increased, and it had been three years since the last modification.

Reportedly, following a hearing, the Trial Court found that per the child support guidelines, the father’s child support obligation should increase by approximately $400 per month, but determined the father could not afford that amount. Subsequently, the Trial Court reduced the father’s child support obligation by $200 per month rather than increasing it. The Department of Child Support then appealed. Continue reading

Generally, the California Courts calculate child support obligations, in part, on each parent’s actual income. In some cases, however, they may determine what constitutes appropriate child support based on a parent’s imputed income. This was illustrated in a recent California case in which the Court declined to substantially reduce a father’s child support obligation after he voluntarily left his job. If you are interested in learning more about child support, it is advisable to speak to a  San Diego child support lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the mother and the father ended their marriage in December 2019. They filed a settlement agreement at that time, during which the father agreed to pay the mother $2,500 each month for child support. A report attached to the agreement indicated that the father’s monthly wages were approximately $10,000, while the mother’s earnings were around $12,000. The father voluntarily left his position in construction sales less than one month later.

Allegedly, the father made partial child support payments for two months and then ceased payments entirely. He filed a request for order (RFO) in June, asking the Court to modify his child support obligations on the grounds that he had no income. The mother opposed the RFO and asked the Court to continue the current obligation or increase it. The Court denied the RFO and imputed income to the father in the amount he was earning prior to quitting his job, set child support at $2,351 per month, and to pay half of the mother’s daycare expenses. The father appealed. Continue reading

In co-parenting arrangements, it is not uncommon for one parent to earn a greater income than the other. As such, the Courts will often find it appropriate to order the higher-earning party to pay child support to their co-parent. While California policy favors providing children with adequate financial support, the Courts may reduce a child support award in certain circumstances. This was demonstrated recently in a California case where the Court ordered the mother to seek employment. If you share custody of a child and have questions regarding support obligations, it is prudent to meet with a San Diego child support lawyer to evaluate your options.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father share custody of a 5-year-old child. When the child was first born, he spent approximately 80 percent of his time with the mother and the remaining time with the father. At that time, the father’s income was $15,000 per month, and he was ordered to pay the mother approximately $1,500 per month in child support. The mother did not work but received $5,000 per month from her father.

It is reported that in 2020, the father moved to modify his support obligation, as his time with his son had increased to over 40 percent. Additionally, he sought a seek-work order compelling the mother to work. The Court granted the order over the mother’s objections, and she appealed. Continue reading