|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTHING ON THIS WEBSITE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL
ADVISE. THE MATERIAL PROVIDED IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE TO SCHEDULE A
CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY.
Jack
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.”
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Bodo
“California has a strong public policy in favor of adequate child support. [Citations.] That policy is expressed in statutes embodying the statewide uniform child 13
support guideline. (See Fam. Code,[5] §§ 4050-4076.)” (Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 283.) “The guideline seeks to place the interests of children as the state‟s top priority.” (§ 4053, subd. (e).) In setting guideline support, courts are required to adhere to the principles set forth in section 4053, which include: (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”; (2) “[b]oth parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children”; (3) “[e]ach parent should pay for the support of the children according to his or her ability”; (4) “[c]hild support orders in cases in which both parents have high levels of responsibility for the children should reflect the increased costs of raising the children in two homes and should minimize significant disparities in the children‟s living standards in the two homes”; and (5) “[c]hildren 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.” (§ 4053, subds. (a), (b), (d), (f) (g).)”
|
|
|
Serving: Stockton, Manteca, Tracy,
Lodi, Ripon and Surrounding Areas
Free 30 Minute Consultation
|
|
|