241 Cal. App. 4th 1277
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- David and Cecilia divorced in 1998; their marital settlement agreement required David to pay child support until specified events (e.g., completion of high school).
- Cecilia sought postjudgment child support in Dec. 2012 under Fam. Code § 3910 for their adult son Robert, then 24, alleging he was "not currently capable of earning a living."
- Robert has Tourette's syndrome and ADHD; he graduated high school, earned two associate degrees, and is enrolled at UCSD receiving accommodations and about $30,000/year in financial aid (including loans). He lives in a campus residence part-time and receives parental help for certain expenses.
- Hearing evidence included testimony from Robert, parents, and a treating psychologist (Dr. Hogan); no vocational expert testified and a referenced neuropsychological report was not admitted.
- The trial court found Robert "incapacitated" and "without sufficient means," awarded parental support under § 3910, but expressed uncertainty about vocational evidence. David appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Cecilia's Argument | David's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to award § 3910 support post‑MSA | Family court retains jurisdiction to order support of an adult incapacitated child under § 2010 and § 3910 | Support terminated under the MSA and no continued jurisdiction; child does not reside with Cecilia so support unavailable | Court: jurisdiction exists under § 2010/§ 3910; residence with parent not required to invoke § 3910 jurisdiction |
| Proper legal standard for "incapacitated from earning a living" under § 3910 | Robert's medical/psychological conditions and need for parental support show incapacity | Robert has ability to work at least in low‑stress jobs; no vocational proof of incapacity | Court: trial court applied wrong standard—must focus on ability to be self‑supporting or ability to find work due to factors beyond child’s control, not merely diagnosis or difficulty combining school/work |
| Proper legal standard for "without sufficient means" under § 3910 | Robert’s current support (e.g., UCSD aid, parental assistance) does not negate need for parental support | Robert has some means (financial aid, potential for minimum wage work); insufficient proof he would become a public charge | Court: trial court misapplied Drake; the correct inquiry is likelihood the adult child will become a public charge; parental‑standard‑of‑living comparison is not the governing test |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support § 3910 award | Testimony and treating psychologist support finding that Robert cannot sustain employment | Lack of vocational evaluation and evidence that Robert could work (low‑stress/minimum wage); Dr. Hogan did not opine inability to work | Court: no substantial evidence to support findings of incapacity or insufficient means; reversal and remand for proper legal analysis and (likely) vocational assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 179 Cal.App.3d 1011 (adult child incapacity requires inability to be self‑supporting or inability to find work due to factors beyond child’s control)
- In re Jessie V., 214 Cal.App.3d 1619 (same standard applied to adult child support inquiries)
- In re Marriage of Drake, 53 Cal.App.4th 1139 (§ 3910: sufficient means tied to likelihood of becoming a public charge; guidance on applying support guidelines)
- In re Marriage of Lambe & Meehan, 37 Cal.App.4th 388 (recognizing continuing jurisdiction to award adult child support)
- Rebensdorf v. Rebensdorf, 169 Cal.App.3d 138 (education‑pursuit does not automatically create a duty to support an otherwise employable adult)
- Chun v. Chun, 190 Cal.App.3d 589 (example of case involving emotionally disabled adult child)
- In re Marriage of Mix, 14 Cal.3d 604 (standard of review for support orders)