Standard of Living -
Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd., 53
Cal.Rptr. 816
"Duty of parent to support a child is
not limited to furnishing the
necessities of life but includes also
maintenance in accord with child's
station in life and customary mode of
living, and a similarly stated rule
applies to the determination of issue of
total dependency as a matter of fact in
workmen's compensation cases."
"As long as ability and opportunity to
earn exist, as defined by the test set
forth in Regnery and approved in
Simpson,
supra, 4 Cal.4th at page 234, the
court has the discretion to consider
earning capacity when consistent with
the child or children's best interests.
In the course of exercising this
discretion, the court may consider
arguments concerning the payor's
motivations or the reasonableness of the
payor's actions in light of all the
relevant circumstances."
Court May Award Child Support Despite
Agreement of Parents - In re Marriage of
Ayo,
"Notwithstanding the right of
parents to enter into agreements
regarding child support and custody,
such agreements are not the last
word on the subject, for the law
views the welfare of the children as
a paramount concern. “[I]t is
settled law in this state that a
minor's right to support and
maintenance by his father may not be
limited or contracted away by his
parents. [Citation.]” (
Fernandez v. Aburrea (1919)
42 Cal.App. 131, 132 [183 P. 366].)
In
Puckett v. Puckett (1943) 21 Cal.2d 833 [136
P.2d 1], our Supreme Court noted
that divorced parents may contract
with each other with respect to
custody and support of their minor
children. However, the Puckett
court added: “But inasmuch as the
children's welfare is the factor of
paramount concern, the children are
not bound by the contract, and the
law vests in the court power to
provide for the custody and control
of minor children. No such contract
may, insofar as the children are
concerned, abridge the power of the
court in appropriate proceedings to
provide for the support of the
children by their parents or for
their custody.” (
Id. at p. 839.) *449
(4)It is clear that the law imposes upon parents the
obligation of supporting their children and the
children's right to such support cannot be limited or
abrogated by their parents. As the Supreme Court
observed in Lewis v. Lewis (1917) 174 Cal. 336, 339
[163 P. 42]: “As a general proposition, no one would
doubt that parents are under an obligation to support
their minor children. This duty rests on fundamental
natural laws and has always been recognized by the
courts in the absence of any statute declaring
it.”