Marriage of Callas CA3, C093353

Amanda (mother) earns significant monthly income (trial court found $49,000 gross; net monthly disposable income used in the guideline = $33,703); Michael’s net disposable income was effectively $0 (trial court found $2,278 gross). Parties do not dispute these figures.
They have three children; the eldest is emancipated. Of the two minors, K lives 100% with Amanda and M lives 100% with Michael (different time-sharing for different children).
The child support guideline formula produced a 2-child guideline amount of $5,813/month; the guideline’s allocation by the Department’s calculator was $4,844 to the child with Michael and $969 to the child with Amanda.
Amanda asked the court to deviate because the guideline would make her pay $969 for the child who lives exclusively with her. The trial court found special circumstances under Family Code §4057(b)(5) and ordered Amanda to pay $4,844/month to Michael (support for M), declining to require her to pay the $969 allocated for K.
The trial court previously awarded Michael $1,250 in attorney’s fees after the initial hearing but denied a request for additional fees; Michael appealed both the deviation and the denial of further fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Michael's Argument	Amanda/Respondents' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by deviating below the guideline amount without adequate findings and without substantial evidence to support departure	The departure from the guideline (ordering $4,844 instead of $5,813) was unsupported by substantial evidence and required written/oral findings under the statute	The special-circumstances exception (different time-sharing for different children) justified deviation; the court adequately stated reasons on the record and substantial evidence supports the finding	Affirmed. Deviation valid under §4057(b)(5); court stated reasons and substantial evidence supports the decision
Whether the court prejudicially abused discretion by denying additional attorney’s fees without making express findings required by §2030/2032	Michael contends the court denied additional fees without required findings and that this requires reversal	The court had already awarded $1,250 earlier; absence of express findings on additional fees does not show prejudice or reasonable probability of a more favorable result	Affirmed. No reversible error because Michael failed to show a reasonable probability additional fees would have been granted if different findings had been made

In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (2001) (trial court must exercise informed, considered discretion in child support matters)
In re Marriage of Fini, 26 Cal.App.4th 1033 (1994) (court must consider circumstances beyond computer-produced guideline result)
In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (2011) (broad discretion to apply special-circumstances exception to guideline)
In re Marriage of Sharples, 223 Cal.App.4th 160 (2014) (section 2030/2032 guide fee awards; court has latitude but must consider statutory factors)
In re Marriage of Morton, 27 Cal.App.5th 1025 (2018) (failure to make required findings on fees requires reversal only if prejudice is shown)