Cryer v. Cryer, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1039

Background

Jon Cryer and Sarah Trigger Cryer were married in 2000 and had a son; they separated in 2004 with Sarah obtaining primary custody and a $10,000/month child support order and 65/35 time share in her favor.
Following separation, a dependency action was filed in May 2009; the child was placed with Jon during preadjudication, with potential for custody/visitation changes under dependency care.
In August 2009 Jon sought to reduce or terminate child support based on the dependency placement and his increased time with the child; Sarah opposed, citing ongoing needs and risk to her housing and bills.
The trial court issued a December 2009 decision: modify child support to $10,000/month through 2009 and $8,000/month from 2010, citing special circumstances to protect the child’s best interests and reunification prospects, and awarded $20,000 in attorney fees to Sarah.
Jon sought reconsideration, an accounting or trust for child support funds, and a later modification at a May 2010 review; the court denied the accounting/trust, and later denied further modification, while awarding $40,000 in attorney fees to Sarah.
On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in the initial modification, the denial of an accounting/trust, the May 2010 review denial, and the attorney fee awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the December 2009 child support modification an abuse of discretion?	Jon contends guideline amount should apply; unusual dependency context warrants substantial reduction.	Sarah defends modification as protective of child’s best interest amid dependency uncertainty and potential reunification needs.	Not an abuse; special circumstances justified above-guideline support to protect the child.
Was retroactive modification improper?	Modification should apply retroactively to August 2009.	Court can deny retroactivity where it would harm the child or impose undue burden; no clear change in circumstances warranted retroactivity.	Properly denied retroactivity; retroactive relief would have risked child’s housing and well-being.
Was the denial of an accounting or trust for the child’s funds correct?	Jon sought an accounting or trust to ensure funds were used for the child; implied misuses in dependency context.	Accounting/trust requests are not routinely warranted absent strong evidence; speculation is insufficient.	Correctly denied; lack of evidence and Chandler framework for necessity.
Was the May 2010 review denial of modification proper?	Changed circumstances post-2009 review warranted further modification.	Dependency progress remained uncertain; no material changes since December 2009.	Proper exercise of discretion; no substantial changed circumstances to award further modification.
Were the attorney-fee awards properly grounded in law?	Fees awarded were excessive or not adequately justified.	Fees were based on relative financial resources and needs, and the case’s complexity; awards reasonable.	Fees upheld; court properly applied §2030 and §2032 considerations.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Chandler, 60 Cal.App.4th 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for child support; guideline deviations must be justified)
In re Marriage of Hubner, 205 Cal.App.3d 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (departure from guideline appropriate only in special circumstances)
In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (child’s needs measured by parents’ stations; imputation considerations)
County of Lake v. Antoni, 18 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (special circumstances discretion in child support awards)
In re Marriage of Leonard, 119 Cal.App.4th 546 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (considerations for determining support modifications and resources)
In re Marriage of de Guigne, 97 Cal.App.4th 1353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (support modification and consideration of overall circumstances)