Marriage of Reeves CA5, F087058M

Alisha Reeves (Wife) and Wade Reeves (Husband) divorced in 2018 with an MSA (Marital Settlement Agreement) that set child support at $1,292 per month and purportedly allowed amendments only by joint written agreement.
In 2021, Wife requested modification of child support, alleging Husband’s income had substantially increased due to new business ventures and investment properties.
The Stanislaus County Department of Child Support Services (Department) intervened to enforce and modify child support, as authorized by statute.
In May 2022, after settlement negotiations and court appearances (some contested by Husband), a stipulated order increased Husband’s monthly child support to $7,000.
Husband repeatedly challenged this order, claiming lack of jurisdiction, improper consent to a commissioner acting as judge, lack of ADA accommodations, and errors in the modification process. Both the motion to set aside the order and a later modification request were denied by the family court.
On appeal, Husband directly challenged only the October 2023 order denying modification and attack on the stipulated order, raising constitutional and procedural arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: Commissioner Stipulation	No valid stipulation for commissioner; orders void	Commissioner had proper authority, or parties consented by conduct	Family court retained jurisdiction; implied/express consent occurred
Personal Jurisdiction	No proof of service; court lacked personal jurisdiction	Husband made general appearances, thereby submitting to jurisdiction	Husband's appearances waived objections; court had personal jurisdiction
Child Support Modification/Res Judicata	MSA required joint written modification; later order violated contract	Child support agreements always modifiable by court for child’s interest	Family court can modify child support regardless of MSA terms
ADA Accommodations	Court erred by not granting ADA accommodations	Husband failed to comply with procedural requirements for requesting accommodations	No error; lack of compliance with Rule 1.100 justified denial

Elkind v. Byck, 68 Cal.2d 453 (Cal. 1968) (parents may not by agreement abrogate the child’s right to support; child support orders are always modifiable)
Reisman v. Shahverdian, 153 Cal.App.3d 1074 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (failure to stipulate to a commissioner makes commissioner’s order void, but does not divest the court of jurisdiction)
In re Estate of Kent, 6 Cal.2d 154 (Cal. 1936) (presumption of regularity applies in absence of explicit record otherwise; oral stipulation can be sufficient)
In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (Cal. 1991) (implied consent to a commissioner can arise by conduct)
In re Marriage of Obrecht, 245 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (general appearance confers personal jurisdiction, waiving service defects)
In re Marriage of Leonard, 119 Cal.App.4th 546 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (modification of child support post-judgment is itself an appealable order)