Bordeaux v. State of Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services CA4/1
D076736
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Adelaide Bordeaux sought child support for her son Q.B.; his birth certificate lists John as father.
- San Diego County opened a child support case against John in 2003 ("665 Case") and closed it in 2006 after unsuccessful efforts to locate him.
- In July 2011 Bordeaux applied for services naming Moses Nwaigwe as Q.B.’s father; the County added Q.B. to an existing case against Nwaigwe ("675 Case") and sent an interstate petition to Texas.
- Texas declined to proceed in December 2011 (Q.B. had turned 18 and John is on the birth certificate); the California superior court later dismissed the 675 Case for lack of personal jurisdiction in 2014.
- Bordeaux requested an administrative hearing; the hearing officer denied her complaint, the Department adopted that decision, Bordeaux sought writ review in superior court under administrative mandamus, the trial court denied relief, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County failed to provide proper notice of closure of the 665 Case | Bordeaux: County closed 665 in 2006 without notifying her | County/Dept: 665 concerned John, not Nwaigwe, and any notice failure re 665 is irrelevant because Bordeaux sought relief against Nwaigwe | Held: No reversible error — substantial evidence shows 665 involved John and not Nwaigwe, so alleged notice failure was immaterial |
| Whether County provided notice of adding Q.B. to the 675 Case | Bordeaux: She lacked adequate notice that Q.B. was added to 675 | County/Dept: Documents (signed/notarized by Bordeaux) bear the 675 case number and show she was notified | Held: Held for Dept — substantial evidence (signed documents) supports that Bordeaux had notice |
| Whether County properly pursued child support/paternity against Nwaigwe (including interstate steps) | Bordeaux: County delayed, failed to register case centrally, or otherwise did not pursue aggressively | County/Dept: County added Q.B. to 675, submitted interstate petition to Texas, attempted to establish paternity per regs; dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction or Texas’ determination | Held: Held for Dept — record shows County took all available steps (added to 675, sent interstate packet); superior court dismissal/jurisdictional limits cannot be overturned by hearing officer |
| Whether trial court erred in denying writ (standard of review/substantial evidence) | Bordeaux: Administrative decision was incorrect | Dept/County: Agency findings supported by substantial evidence; petitioner bears burden to show absence of substantial evidence | Held: Held for Dept — appellate review applies substantial-evidence standard to agency findings; Bordeaux failed to show lack of substantial evidence or legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.App.5th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses local child support agency authority to establish/modify/enforce support)
- Young v. City of Coronado, 10 Cal.App.5th 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (explains administrative mandamus review and substantial-evidence focus)
- Dore v. County of Ventura, 23 Cal.App.4th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (describes appellate role in reviewing agency decisions under administrative mandamus)