Issues: Child Support, Income Determination, Imputation of income, Balance between maximizing income and Parenting


Parties have a responsibility to contribute monetarily to raising the children. A custodial parent does so directly by providing, food, water and other necessities of life to the child. A non-custodial parent does so, by contributing a portion of their income to the custodial parent.

The amount of money that is determined by formulas in the family code and is called guideline child support. One of the inputs to the formula is income. Income is only the income of the parents, unless it would lead to an extreme hardship for the child, then the court can look at community income. The trial court must first find extreme hardship before it can look at community income.

This case was remanded for more evidence on the relevant facts which would result in a lawful order and procedure.

The unpublished case below shows this process:

At judgement Father had joint legal custody, visitation several days and Child Support (CS) of $1772

Employment efforts order against Wife.

At the time of the order, Randall who worked for Tire Co was commuting to Riverside. At order he asked his employer for accomodation for visiting his child and started working in Visalia which allowed for visitation.

Tire Co wanted Dad back in Riverside, which he could not do without forfeiting visitation

Tire Co said he could stay at Riverside at 60% of salary

Tire Co then terminated Father

Father starts working for In laws at 40% of prior Salary


Father files motion w/ new I and E Mother says Father's change in income was to avoid CS

Father's response is, to be a father I need to visit

Father's testimony is no jobs like old job. So I earn less

The trial court refused to impute at rate of old job, and said Father forced to choose between a much better paying job and being a dad. No one should have to make that trade.

Guideline would be $68.00 and court determined that was inequitable and deviated. The court also went on to say that new employer (inlaws) was a closely held corp and therefore Father could have sway in determination and therefore new wife's income was factored in to the determination

Section 4057.5 prohibits use of new spouse income unless there is a finding of extreme hardship for the child BEFORE the new spouse income is factored in. As a matter of law 91K can not be shown to be insufficient.

No evidence showing that the two parents could not take care of the needs of the children and there was no extraordinary circumstances shown.

Remanded to take into account Father's more time, and Mother's higher income

In re Thomas, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8272 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Oct. 19, 2009)