87 Cal.App.5th 586
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- D.H. (Mother) and B.G. (Father) divorced; Father paid $10,000/month child support for the parties’ youngest child, A.G. A.G. turned 18 in March 2020.
- Father filed requests for orders (RFOs) in 2021 seeking a judicial determination that his support obligation terminated in June 2020 (A.G. allegedly no longer a full‑time high school student) and a refund of overpayments (~$20,000). He also sought sanctions under Fam. Code §271 (denied).
- Mother submitted A.G.’s transcript and diploma showing summer coursework in 2020, inpatient treatment Sept 2020–Jan 2021, adult school enrollment in 2021, and graduation in May 2021 from Grossmont Adult School.
- Father relied on a claimed school standard (Grossmont = 15 credits per quarter = full‑time) and the transcript to argue A.G. was not full‑time after June 2020.
- The family court found A.G. ceased to be a full‑time high‑school student after June 2020 (citing Grossmont’s alleged 15‑credit standard), ordered refund of overpayments, denied sanctions, and Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “full‑time” in Fam. Code §3901 | Should mean being demonstrably engaged toward timely (four‑year) graduation; not rigid credit counts | Should be defined by the child’s school/district standard (e.g., Grossmont’s 15‑credit rule) | “Full‑time” generally means the length of the schoolday designated by the school district (Ed. Code §48200). Trial court used incorrect standard; reversal and remand. |
| Whether A.G. was full‑time after June 2020 | A.G. remained on a path to graduate; transcript/treatment explain gaps and support continued entitlement until May 2021 | A.G.’s post‑June 2020 course load (and Grossmont’s claimed full‑time threshold) shows she was not full‑time | Court did not resolve on record; remanded to apply Ed. Code §48200 standard and consider school calendar/summer session and additional evidence. |
| Retroactive termination / jurisdiction | Trial court lacked authority to terminate support retroactively or implicitly based on material change of circumstance | Father sought a judicial determination that obligation had already terminated by operation of law (not retroactive modification) | Court had jurisdiction; sections limiting retroactive modification (e.g., §§3651–3653) do not bar a judicial determination that an obligation terminated by operation of law. No implicit changed‑circumstances finding was required. |
| Burden of proof and evidentiary form | Father bore the burden to prove termination; court improperly relied on unadmitted/hearsay evidence | Once Father properly raised the issue, Mother (custodial parent with superior access/obligation to notify) should bear burden to prove full‑time status; parties submitted on declarations | On remand Mother must bear burden to prove A.G. was a full‑time student for the period at issue; court properly considered written submissions where parties agreed to submit on the papers (excluding dubious hearsay about Grossmont). |
Key Cases Cited
- United Educators of San Francisco v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal.5th 805 (Supreme Court of California 2020) (interpreting school calendar and academic‑term concepts)
- Look v. Penovatz, 34 Cal.App.5th 61 (Court of Appeal 2019) (section 3901 termination by operation of law)
- In re Charlisse C., 45 Cal.4th 145 (Supreme Court of California 2008) (remand warranted where parties and trial court applied wrong legal standard)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Court of Appeal 2011) (context on modification burden in change‑of‑circumstances cases)
- In re Marriage of Deamon, 35 Cal.App.5th 476 (Court of Appeal 2019) (parties may submit on written declarations; no live testimony required if not requested)
- In re Marriage of Pasco, 42 Cal.App.5th 585 (Court of Appeal 2019) (distinguishes cases where evidentiary hearing was requested)
- In re Marriage of Hubner, 124 Cal.App.4th 1082 (Court of Appeal 2004) (procedural context for post‑majority support disputes and notification/refund mechanism)
- In re Marriage of Binette, 24 Cal.App.5th 1119 (Court of Appeal 2018) (declaring that deciding on written submissions is permissible)
- In re Marriage of Hein, 52 Cal.App.5th 519 (Court of Appeal 2020) (factors for shifting burden of proof)