Special Circumstances in Child Support Cases

Involving an Extraordinarily High Earner

___________

IRMO Cryer (8/29/11) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039

Jon and Sarah were married, producing a son together, and later divorced. Sarah subsequently had a second child by a different marriage, which also ended. Although Mom had primary physical custody of the child with Jon for which she received "substantial" child support of $10,000 each month and a 65 % "timeshare", she began to suffer some difficulties that first resulted in Jon's ex parte application to modify the prior agreed upon orders to sole custody in his favor in May, 2009. Jon alleged that she had left his child unsupervised. The family law court denied that ex parte request but admonished Sarah not to leave her children unsupervised. Later that same month CPS became involved when her younger child suffered an injury at Sarah's home. A dependency proceeding was filed against her by the Department of Children and Family Services, which resulted in each child being placed with their respective fathers. There is no commentary in the decision about whether the fathers are working together to preserve and protect the sibling bonding.

When a dependency proceeding is filed by child protective services there are strict rules governing procedure that are generally designed to move the proceeding quickly towards determining whether jurisdiction properly exists, in order to ensure that the public policy favoring reunification with the problem parent is honored. However, Sarah's dependency proceeding moved extraordinarily slowly. In the meantime Jon battled her in Judge Pellman's courtroom. In addition, she was also likely defending against the claims of her second husband over custody of the younger child. We don't know what the exact alleged facts are over the circumstances giving rise to the dependency proceeding, but it is obvious that Sarah had her hands full with "two and a half men" - two former husbands and a young child.

Once his son was placed into his custody, Jon filed an application to modify the $10,000 in monthly support to zero since, after all, the child had temporarily been placed with him. Did he hope this might be the killing stroke (coup de grace) that would bring Mom to her knees, forever? There are litigants who feel that if they seize upon the other party's moment of weakness they will remain in power for the remainder of a child's minority, and a lawyer might reasonably advise this tactic under the aegis of "zealous representation". Jon's extreme request was his first mistake. When people want it all they are sometimes sorely disappointed.

Mother argued that $10,000/month was no burden to Jon because that amount was only 3 percent of his income at the time. She urged that the outcome of the dependency proceeding was uncertain, temporary, and subject to change and that without a steady child support order she would have no money to pay her mortgage, car payments, or any other bills. She pointed out that such a result could never serve the child's best interests.

This is where an outstanding trial judge makes all the difference, because superficially Jon's contentions were reasonable.

Prior to the hearing the parties exchanged income and expense declarations. Jon's "stated income" was alleged as $327,000 monthly when averaged over three years, he held $7 million in liquid assets, and monthly expenses of $29,000. By the way, if people want to go public about their affairs, litigation is the right choice. Sarah had "negligible" assets and overhead expenses of $10,000 monthly, not including attorney fees.

A "guideline" child support order using the "Dissomaster" based upon mother's reduced timeshare would have resulted in her favor of a modified amount of $1,141/month. Sarah argued she would lose everything if that was her only income.

The matter was heard on November 2, 2009. Judge Pellman declined to reduce Jon's child support to zero, even though Sarah had little custodial time under the pending dependency court orders, but she did reduce it significantly from $10,000 to $8,000 monthly. The trial court noted that since Sarah's custody arrangement could be modified by the dependency court in short order (which was expected to be the situation) and DCFS could liberalize Mom's visitation schedule at any time, and therefore found that the minor's best interest was best served if the boy could return to the same home that he had shared with his mother prior to the proceedings, and further that it was important for both the mother and child that she have the ability to have regular and consistent contact with him. She ordered the father to pay $20,000 in attorney fees to Sarah's attorneys.

Jon was not satisfied with this ruling. He immediately filed a motion for reconsideration together with a separate Order to Show Cause seeking an accounting of how all child support funds he'd paid had been used, alternatively requesting that these funds be placed into a trust account for the 'direct benefit' of his son. Evidently he believed that paying a mortgage, and having a car, only benefited Sarah and not the boy. Judge Pellman denied his requests (after making some technical corrections to her orders) and awarded that Sarah receive another $5,000 in attorney fees, which was likely only a portion of what she actually incurred.

Three months later Jon filed supplemental authorities prior to a review hearing that had been set, arguing that the dependency proceedings had still not be resolved and that Sarah's visitations had not been "liberalized" as the Court had anticipated. Further, he argued that Sarah wasn't looking for a job and that she was the one benefitting from the child support payments and therefore the Court should stay child support until such time as Sarah's timeshare was increased by the dependency court. This would have had the effect of "starving" Sarah out and really speaks volumes to the level of resentment that Jon was exhibiting - made ever more poignant for us by reflecting upon the degree of privilege from the extraordinary earnings that he enjoys. Again, a trial and appellate court would be reasonable in questioning his motives based upon all the economic circumstances, and in protecting the disadvantaged party consistent with the law. Which is exactly what happened in both courts. As a further expression of his overreaching (or that of his lawyers), Jon filed a new income and expense showing $474,861 in monthly earnings that averaged his income over the prior three years. While it is true that there is no fixed rule in what span of time courts review in determining income, still they are required to look to relevant evidence. Often times the prior 12 months provides this yardstick. 

Sarah's counsel rejoined that Jon's income over the past 12 months was $791,666/month. Sarah was apparently the tick on the back of the elephant. In addition, Sarah's visitation had been liberalized to include home visits. Sarah argued it would be nice for the boy to have a home where these visitations could occur. Also, she had monthly expenses of $13,271 and no income beyond CS.

On May 10, 2010, Judge Pellman ruled that no changed circumstances existed from the time of her earlier orders to modify support further. There still was no "exit order" from the dependency court. The proceedings had not resolved. Moreover, the finding was unavoidable that Sarah would lose her home without support monies to pay the mortgage. The judge ordered Jon to pay another $40,000 in fees to Sarah's attorney.  

Family Code section 4057(b) is an important provision that cuts both ways in terms of adhering to or departing from "guideline" support. That section states that the amount of child support that is presumed under our state-wide formula may be rebutted by showing that the amounts otherwise rendered by the guideline "would be unjust or inappropriate in [a] particular case." Increasingly attorneys for prime time parents are directing trial Courts to this section to support their claims that when custody is cut-off with the other parent, or severely restricted, that support should be zeroed out. For instance, the argument is frequently made, and sometimes accepted, that where the low earner parent has a de minimis timeshare that would otherwise result in some child support to them based upon the parties' respective incomes, that the de minimis timeshare parent should not receive child support because the prime time parent bears the substantial bulk of the financial burden. The problem with this analysis is that child related expenses for living accommodations are a fixed expense. Marriage of Cryer implicitly recognizes this reality, and Judge Pellman apprehended the paradox clearly.

Jon apparently made this argument - he told the appellate court that Judge Pellman had abused her discretion because "he had nearly total responsibility for the child." Indeed, Justice Boren agreed that "under normal circumstances, such a deviation from guideline support would be an abuse of discretion." But given Jon's income, these were not normal circumstances but not necessarily for the reasons that Jon urged. "The trial court was faced with a pending and uncertain dependency case over which it had no control...." "The trial court also faced the strong possibility that visitation and custody arrangements could change quickly,..." "Furthermore, while one parent enjoyed an extraordinarily high income and could easily afford to pay monthlyl child support of $8,000 or $10,000, the other parent had essentially no income, and would be unable to maintain a household of the sort to which the child was accustomed absent substantial support." Therefore, Judge Pellman did not abuse her discretion. 

The Court noted that although the child support formula, "a complicated algebraic" equation, is often referred to as "guideline" the term is "misleading. Instead, the formula yields "presumptively correct" numbers in all cases which may be rebutted by the particular circumstances of the parties and of the children. In this case the guideline presumption was rebutted consistent with the state policies that:

• Placing the interests of child has been legislatively declared to be the state's top priorty
• 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
• Each parent should pay for the support of children according to his or her ability
• "Children should share in the standard of living of both parents and child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children."

Here "an order that resulted in [the] child's spending time with his father in an opulent abode and time with his mother in a low-rent apartment would have conflicted with principles of Family Code section 4053."

Moreover, while the father "may have found the situation unfair, the primary focus must remain on the child's wellbeing, not the parents' feelings" about money. The revised $8,000/month child support order was only from 1 to 2 1/2 percent of Jon's mnothly income. Judge Pellman's order therefore also served to minimize the harm that might inure to the parties' son had each parent merely supplying living conditions based upon their respective incomes, without help from the other. Finally, the appellate court dismissed Jon's argument that he should not be obligated to pay $8,000 month where the mother's Income and Expense declaration showed that she only paid $4,999 in monthly housing relating expenses. The trial Court had discretion to look the broad view of the parties circumstances and was not required to fix a number based upon any one element of their total expense package.

Irmo Cryer is also an important case for ordering attorney's fees to financially weaker parties. Jon argued that the initial award of $20,000 was more than the mother's attorney had asked for in her moving declaration, but Mom's attorney made an oral request for a greater suma that the hearing based upon fees that had increased since the moving declaration had been filed, and her papers had noted that further fees would be incurred. Next Jon argued that he had won a motion for reconsideration that made him a prevailing party, and that he should not therefore been required to pay Mom's fees. Not so said the appellate court, "[b]ecause of the importance of ensuring that the parties both have the ability to present their cases effectively, attorney fees may be awarded against a prevailing party in family law proceedings."

I have had the great good fortune to have met Judge Pellman, and applaud her efforts and her well reasoned trial court decision! 

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

• If you can, try to research CCP § 1008, including looking at some legal treatise or the reported appellate decisions that mention it
• New or different facts don't generally include things you forgot to mention, unless you have some really credible explanation of why you forgot
• You must explain to the Court what you learned, how and when you learned it, why you didn't learn it earlier, and why these new or different facts matter enough that the Court should render a different outcome.  If the other party withheld facts that you became aware of only after the hearing, you need to describe your reasonable diligence in having attempted to first get all the facts
• New facts are not the same as different facts.  Be specific
• Telling the judge you just think she was wrong is rarely helpful - judges know they will be wrong some of the time, and they are trained as much to just make a decision as to get it right (clearly they want to get it right).  Most of us don't like being told we are wrong and that is rarely a useful persuasive tool.  Instead, focus on the justice or injustice of the situation and be humble
• Explaining that you made a mistake without more is also risky, because lawyers and parties do make mistakes in presenting their cases but the law favors finality in decision-making.  Your  mistake needs to have been a reasonable one. 
• Always consider combining your reconsideration request with a request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473, which is a very important statute that covers relief from orders or judgments that result from your inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or reasonable neglect

In your situation the question will be:  If you knew 10 days before the hearing that your time had been cut back, why didn't you mention it?  If you did mention it, then the Court considered your evidence and ruled against you, so this would not be new information. 

Also, how different would the outcome have been if the Court had considered or known of the cut backs in your work?  For instance, if those cut backs are partial and your income is 15% less than the Court supposed, this may not seem so important to the Judge that she thinks she needs to correct the unfairness of the result.  If it is 40% less, she might.  There are no hard and fast rules that can be applied with consistency.

It is quite common for clients to wind up hiring attorneys after they attempted to handle their case on their own, and it blew up at the hearing, and now they need desperately to get more or better information in front of the judge.  It is very difficult to "un-ring the bell." 

When these things happen they are a good lesson of why the adversarial court process is to be avoided whenever possible, and of the importance of finding and listening to a competent lawyer early on in your case.