Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez)
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 187
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Parents (Robert and Leslie) adopted three children with special needs (diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum issues); Leslie has full legal/physical custody; Robert had zero timeshare.
- Divorce entered 2008; child support was reserved and set to zero by stipulation in 2010; Department moved to modify support in 2015 and temporary support of $1,500/month was ordered.
- Robert is a sole-practitioner attorney; tax returns and profit-and-loss statements for 2012–2016 were admitted; Robert claimed monthly vehicle depreciation (~$536) as a business deduction reducing income.
- Trial court accepted the profit-and-loss figures but added back depreciation, found monthly income reflecting that adjustment, deducted $1,850 child support Robert paid for another child, computed guideline support ($772), then upwardly deviated to $1,273 based on special circumstances.
- Trial court relied on Leslie’s testimony and a psychiatrist’s letter describing the children’s lifelong special needs; Robert had stipulated pretrial to waive objections to treatment-provider letters; he appealed arguing depreciation should be deductible, the deviation lacked evidentiary support (hearsay), and the court failed to rule on his sanctions/costs request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robert) | Defendant's Argument (Dept./Leslie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether depreciation may be deducted from business income for child support calculation | Depreciation of vehicles is a legitimate business expense and should reduce income available for support | Depreciation is a tax/accounting deduction, not an actual cash outlay; statutes and precedent limit allowable deductions | Court affirmed: depreciation not deductible for child support; followed Asfaw (add-back to income) |
| Whether trial court erred in deviating upward from guideline support | Deviation unjustified; relied on inadmissible hearsay (psychiatrist’s letter) and insufficient basis | Children have lifelong special needs requiring substantial out-of-pocket care; Robert unilaterally paid far above-guideline support for another child, unfairly reducing support here | Court affirmed deviation: special circumstances (children’s needs and Robert’s payments for other child) supported upward departure |
| Whether the psychiatrist’s letter was inadmissible hearsay and its use reversible error | Letter was hearsay and Robert lacked opportunity to rebut; admission prejudiced him | Parties stipulated to waive objections to treatment-provider letters for the long-cause hearing; Leslie’s testimony independently supported findings | Court affirmed: Robert waived hearsay objection by stipulation and failed to timely object; substantial evidence (Leslie’s testimony) independently supported findings |
| Whether trial court erred by not ruling on Robert’s request for costs/sanctions | Trial court failed to address his request; requires reversal/remand | No reversible error shown in final order (court’s omission not shown to prejudice outcome) | Court declined reversal; did not find prejudicial error from alleged failure to address costs; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Asfaw v. Woldberhan, 147 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Court of Appeal) (depreciation is not deductible from business income for child-support calculations)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App.) (section 4057(b)(5) special-circumstances deviation grants broad trial-court discretion)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court must exercise informed, considered discretion in family law matters)