9 Cal. App. 5th 974
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Mother (Y.R.) sought guideline child support for daughter Z.; father (A.F.) is an extraordinarily high‑income film director/producer and lived with wife and other children.
- Mother had sole custody; prior informal payments from father averaged ~$5,000/month; she filed in Oct 2014 seeking guideline support and contribution to insurance, uncovered medical and extracurricular costs.
- Father disclosed substantial company and personal income; competing DissoMaster calculations produced guideline support figures of ~$11,840/month (father’s figure) and $25,325/month (mother’s expert).
- Trial court found father an extraordinarily high earner, accepted an elevated income estimate (~$336,470/month), found guideline support would be $25,325, but awarded $8,500/month plus tuition and medical, without articulating detailed reasons for deviating.
- Mother objected that the court relied on her historical expenses, shifted burden to her to prove needs, and failed to state on the record or in writing the reasons required by Family Code §4056(a); she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Y.R.) | Defendant's Argument (A.F.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court complied with Fam. Code §4056(a) in deviating from guideline | Court failed to state reasons on record or in writing for deviation and for best‑interests conclusion | Deviation findings are discernible from record; no reversal required | Reversed and remanded: court must state required §4056(a) reasons; failure mandates reversal |
| Proper evidentiary focus for determining child’s needs when payor is extraordinarily high earner | Child’s needs should be measured by father’s disposable income and lifestyle, not mother’s historical expenses | Court reasonably relied on mother’s expense evidence showing what child actually incurred | Court erred in relying principally on mother’s historic expenses; child’s needs are primarily measured by higher‑earner’s disposable income/standard of living |
| Burden of proof on deviation when high‑income exception invoked | Father bears burden to prove application of guideline would be unjust/inappropriate | Court treated mother as having burden to justify guideline amount | Court reaffirmed that high‑earner invoking exception has burden to prove deviation justified; trial court incorrectly shifted burden |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support downward deviation | Mother argued father did not prove guideline exceeded child’s needs; she sought remand but not mandatory award of guideline | Father relied on his declarations and expense categories but offered little detail about his children’s lifestyle costs | Although substantial evidence existed that could support deviation, procedural failure to state reasons required reversal and remand for proper findings under correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (court must exercise informed discretion in support orders)
- In re Marriage of Hall, 81 Cal.App.4th 313 (trial court must calculate guideline under §4055 before deviating)
- In re Marriage of Hubner, 94 Cal.App.4th 175 (child entitled to share in wealthy parent’s standard of living; high‑earner’s income primary factor)
- Rojas v. Mitchell, 50 Cal.App.4th 1445 (failure to state reasoning for deviation under §4056 requires reversal)
- S.P. v. F.G., 4 Cal.App.5th 921 (statement of reasons cannot be conclusory; must tie findings to evidence)
- Johnson v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 68 (limits on discovery for high earners; lifestyle evidence relevant to child’s needs)
- In re Marriage of Wittgrove, 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 (high‑income parent bears burden to prove formula unjust or inappropriate)
- McGinley v. Herman, 50 Cal.App.4th 936 (child’s right to share in high‑earner parent’s standard of living)