Kern County Department of Child Support Services v. Camacho
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Raul Camacho, Jr. moved to modify child support arrears; Department claimed credits for some extra payments but treated others as gifts.
- Hearing before Commissioner Ralph L. McKnight, Jr. credited some extra payments toward arrears and treated others as gifts; set aside motion denied.
- A separate set-aside motion challenged lack of proper advisement under Family Code § 4251(b) regarding objection to a commissioner.
- Initial 2002 stipulation reduced support; 2005 waiver of unassigned arrears with Medina; 2006 modification to $629 total monthly support.
- 2011 hearings involved multiple continuances and a consolidated proceeding to address arrears and ongoing support.
- Trial court denied the set-aside motion; Department and Camacho appealed, challenging Commissioner McKnight’s authority and advisement procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Camacho properly advised under §4251(b) about objecting to a commissioner as temporary judge? | Camacho argues advisement was defective; he did not attend the video. | Department/County contends advisement was adequate and notice was provided. | Yes; substantial evidence shows awareness; no prejudice shown; commissioner proper. |
| May the same commissioner hear the set-aside motion after ruling on arrears? | Set-aside should be heard by a judge, not the same commissioner. | Hearing the set-aside before the same commissioner is appropriate as a follow-up proceeding. | Yes; same commissioner may hear the set-aside as a progeny matter. |
| Are Camacho’s forfeiture arguments on appeal valid? | Code sections cited not raised below, should not be considered. | Arguments not raised below are forfeited. | Forfeited; appellate arguments not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Orange v. Smith, 96 Cal.App.4th 955 (Cal.App. 2002) (prejudice standard for § 4251 advisement; implied consent when right to object exists)
- In re Marriage of Rothrock, 159 Cal.App.4th 223 (Cal.App. 2008) (de novo review and abuse-of-discretion standards)
- Gridley v. Gridley, 166 Cal.App.4th 1562 (Cal.App. 2008) (progeny motion implications; continuity of authority)
- McCartney v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.3d 1334 (Cal.App. 1990) (motion to set aside appropriateness of prior judgment)