S.People v. F.G.
B268249A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Mother (S.P.) and father (F.G.) share a 14‑year‑old daughter, E.P.; father never lived with child and had no custodial time.
- Father is extremely wealthy (net worth > $400M; annual net income about $4,061,815) and historically paid mother ~$9,200–$10,000/month plus paid E.P.’s education, medical, and extracurricular costs.
- Mother sought guideline child support under Fam. Code §4055 (DissoMaster result $40,882/mo) or alternatively at least $35,000/mo, and asked father to pay all educational, medical, and extracurricular expenses.
- Trial court found many of mother’s claimed “proposed needs” inflated or unsupported, calculated a downward deviation, and ordered $14,840/mo to mother plus direct payment by father of all reasonable medical insurance/expenses, private school tuition/expenses, and reasonable extracurricular costs.
- Trial court explained it relied on the parties’ historical arrangement as some evidence of reasonable needs, applied Fam. Code §4053 principles, found the guideline presumption rebutted (extraordinarily high income would exceed child’s needs), and concluded the award served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by relying on historical/current expenses to set support | Court improperly used historical expenses and current out‑of‑pocket costs rather than father’s wealth and potential future needs | Historical payments and parties’ conduct are some evidence of reasonable needs; court considered wealth and future needs | Held: No abuse. Court permissibly considered historical payments as some evidence and also applied §4053 principles, including father’s station in life |
| Whether trial court failed to consider father’s extraordinarily high income when setting support | Mother: court undervalued effect of father’s wealth; guideline amount should control or higher award needed | Father: court properly found guideline amount would exceed child’s needs despite his high income and rebutted guideline presumption | Held: No error. Court found guideline rebutted because guideline amount would exceed child’s needs and applied wealth principles in §4053 |
| Sufficiency of evidence that below‑guideline award was in child’s best interest | Mother: insufficient evidence to show lower award met E.P.’s best interests; many claimed expenses legitimate | Father: many claimed expenses inflated/not credible; court reasonably adjusted amounts and ordered direct payments for education/medical | Held: Substantial evidence supported deviation; trial court reasonably rejected inflated claims and ensured affluent standard of living |
| Whether trial court stated legally required reasons for deviating from guideline and for best‑interest finding | Mother: court did not adequately articulate why award differed from guideline and why it served child’s best interest (Fam. Code §4056) | Father: trial court provided detailed written findings explaining reasons and applied §4053 factors | Held: Court complied with §4056 — its detailed written order provided the required reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (child’s needs measured by parents’ station in life; wealthy parents justify higher standard of living)
- In re Marriage of Hubner, 94 Cal.App.4th 175 (burden on high‑earner to show guideline would be unjust or inappropriate)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (guideline presumptive but rebuttable; courts must adhere to §4053 principles)
- In re Marriage of McHugh, 231 Cal.App.4th 1238 (description of guideline calculation and presumptive correctness)
- Rojas v. Mitchell, 50 Cal.App.4th 1445 (trial court must state reasons when deviating from guideline)