crawford05 said:
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California
I had a very brief relationship (now over) with a woman who is now carrying and having my child. I make a sizable amount more that she does and based on the CA Child Support Calculator, my support to her would be roughly half of her current net income (her net income @ $2000, projected child support @ $1000). Can this be right?! Is there any way of reducing? If reduction is not an option is there a possibility of putting a percentage into an account (ex: college fund) that the mother would never have access to? Otherwise, this "child support" will not be going to my child. What can I do?
My response:
The statutory child support scheme implicitly directs that the parents' standard of living be a significant benchmark for child support awards. Legislative intent on this point is expressed as follows:
• In implementing Ca Fam § 4050 et seq., courts "shall adhere" to the principles that (1) "[a] parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life"; and (2) "[c]hildren should share in the standard of living of both parents." [Ca Fam § 4053(a) & (f) (emphasis added); see Marriage of Simpson (1992) 4 Cal.4th 225, 231, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 414; Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1360, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 430, 435]
• In developing recommendations for future revisions of the child support "guideline," "the Judicial Council . . . shall be guided by the legislative intent that children share in the standard of living of both parents." [Ca Fam § 4054(g) (emphasis added); see Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87, 97, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 374, 381 & fn. 8]
These statutory directives effectively require child support awards to reflect a minor child's right to be maintained
"in a lifestyle and condition consonant with [his or her] parents' position in society." [White v. Marciano (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1031, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779, 782 (brackets added); see Marriage of de Guigne, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at 1366, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d at 440; Marriage of Kerr, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at 95-96, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d at 380; Marriage of Hubner (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175, 187, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 655]
More than bare necessities:
Thus, the amount of a child support award is more than a question of "bare necessities." "Clearly where the child has a wealthy parent, that child is entitled to, and therefore 'needs' something more than the bare necessities of life." [Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 293, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 755, 773; Marriage of Hubner, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at 187, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d at 655; Johnson v. Super.Ct. (Tate) (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 68, 71, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 626; see Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87, 97, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 374, 381, fn. 8--where children have extraordinarily high earning parent, "their 'needs' will necessarily include the continued security of their financial future"]
Judged by both parents' standard of living:
The award must reflect both parents' standard of living. [Ca Fam § 4053(f); Marriage of Young (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 147, 154, 273 Cal.Rptr. 495, 499; Marriage of Catalano (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 543, 552, 251 Cal.Rptr. 370, 376; see also Marriage of Kerr, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at 97, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d at 380-381; County of Kern v. Castle (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1457-1458, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 885--abuse of discretion not to consider obligor's sizable inheritance that substantially improved his standard of living]
Notwithstanding incidental benefit to custodial parent/family:
Where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds the custodial parent's living standard, child support must "to some degree" reflect that more "opulent lifestyle." This is so even though, as a practical matter, the child support payments will incidentally benefit others in the custodial household whom the payor parent has no obligation to support (e.g., custodial parent owed no spousal support, adult children, or children from custodial parent's other relationships). [Johnson v. Super.Ct. (Tate), supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at 71, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d at 626; Marriage of Hubner (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 660, 668, 252 Cal.Rptr. 428, 433; see also County of Alameda v. Johnson (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 259, 264, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 483, 486--fact other members of child's family "who are unrelated to (payor parent) and to whom he owes no support obligation might be benefited by the payment of support beyond mere subsistence levels is not a special circumstance (warranting rebuttal revision of formula support)"]
"Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children." [Ca Fam § 4053(f) (emphasis added); Marriage of Chandler (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 124, 130, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 113; see also Marriage of Young, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at 154, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 499--children entitled to share in noncustodial father's "elevated standard of living" despite custodial mother's substantially lower income;
Marriage of Ostler & Smith (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 33, 54, 272 Cal.Rptr. 560, 573--awarding supported children percentage of noncustodial father's future bonuses ensures they will share in his standard of living (rejecting argument of no assurances children would be "actual beneficiaries" of the order)]
Allocation of "standard of living" support obligation:
Each parent is supposed to pay child support according to his or her ability and "circumstances and station in life" (Ca Fam § 4053(a) & (d).
Thus, the parent with a higher standard of living has the obligation to ensure his or her children share in that lifestyle. [Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1363-1364, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 430, 438-439--H's child support obligation properly based on his $25-40 million in non-income-producing assets which credible expert testimony established could be liquidated in part to ensure his children shared in his "lavish lifestyle"; County of Stanislaus v. Gibbs (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1427, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 819, 825]
A noncustodial parent cannot be forced to pay child support beyond his or her means simply to match the custodial parent's new "station in life" (as where custodial parent remarries into wealthier social position). [Chapin v. Super.Ct. (Chapin) (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 852, 856, 49 Cal.Rptr. 199, 202]
Formula support decrease on account of "extraordinarily high income" payor:
Notwithstanding legislative intent that minor children share in both parents' standard of living (Ca Fam § 4053(f)), Ca Fam § 4057 authorizes a decrease in the presumptively-correct formula amount of support when the obligor parent's "extraordinarily high income" yields a formula amount of support that would "exceed the needs of the children" (Ca Fam § 4057(b)(3).
Basically, you're screwed.
IAAL
