S.P. v. F.G.
4 Cal. App. 5th 921
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (S.P.) and father (F.G.) share a 14‑year‑old child, E.P.; father never had custody and lives apart.
- Father is extremely wealthy (net worth > $400M; annual net income ≈ $4,061,815); mother has lower income and previously received voluntary monthly payments (~$9,200–$10,000) plus father paid education/medical/extracurricular costs.
- Mother sought guideline child support (DissoMaster result $40,882/mo) or alternatively at least $35,000/mo, and submitted a detailed income-and-expense declaration claiming large “proposed needs” (~$78,155/mo total; ~$69,420/mo for child).
- Trial court held an RFO hearing on declarations (no live testimony), calculated the guideline amount, but deviated downward and ordered $14,840/mo to mother plus direct payment of reasonable medical, private school, and extracurricular expenses.
- Trial court explained its findings in a written order: it found many of mother’s claimed needs inflated/unsubstantiated, relied in part on the parties’ historic arrangement as evidentiary support for reasonable needs, and concluded guideline support was rebutted because it would exceed the child’s needs despite father’s high income.
- Mother appealed arguing the court improperly relied on historical/current expenses, failed to account for father’s extraordinary income properly, provided insufficient evidence that the below‑guideline award was in the child’s best interest, and did not adequately state reasons for deviating from the guideline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by using historical/current expenses to set support | Mother: court relied improperly on historical payments and current out‑of‑pocket costs rather than child’s needs measured by parents’ station in life | Father: historical payments and parties’ conduct are admissible evidence of reasonable needs; court considered station in life | Held: No abuse; court treated historical payments as "some evidence," considered station in life, and awarded an amount above historical monthly payment for mother’s benefit |
| Whether court failed to consider father’s extraordinary income when deviating downward from guideline | Mother: court under‑considered father’s wealth; guideline should dictate higher support | Father: deviation permissible where guideline exceeds child's needs; burden on parent seeking deviation to prove injustice | Held: No error; court found guideline would exceed child’s needs and properly applied statutory principles for deviation |
| Sufficiency of evidence that below‑guideline award served child’s best interest | Mother: insufficient evidence to show lower award met child’s best interests given claimed needs | Father: trial court reasonably rejected inflated claims and articulated how the award meets child’s needs and standards of living | Held: Substantial evidence supports court’s finding that the award is in child’s best interest and was not a rubber‑stamp of mother’s claims |
| Whether trial court stated adequate reasons for deviating from guideline (Fam. Code §4056) | Mother: court failed to state why amount differed from guideline and why it’s consistent with best interests | Father: court provided detailed written explanation addressing deviation and best‑interest rationale | Held: No error; the court’s written findings satisfy §4056 and explain deviation and best‑interest reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App.) (child’s needs measured by parents’ station in life; historical expenses do not rigidly define current needs)
- In re Marriage of Hubner, 94 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App.) (burden on high‑earner seeking downward deviation; child entitled to parents’ station in life)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard of review and principles guiding deviation from guideline)
- In re Marriage of McHugh, 231 Cal.App.4th 1238 (Cal. Ct. App.) (description of statewide uniform guideline and formula)
- In re Marriage of Wittgrove, 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. Ct. App.) (application of downward departure where guideline exceeds child’s needs)