CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Child Support
......Current C/S Guidelines
.........Rebutting Presumptive Amount
............Unjust to Apply Formula (Special Circ.)
 16 Cards On This Topic:
  • Presumptive amount may be rebutted by showing guideline would be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances particular case.
  • Children's special needs justified an upward deviation from guideline.
  • H's act of voluntarily agreeing to pay above-guideline c/s to a child of a former marriage to intentionally reduce his c/s to his current children warranted an upward deviation from guideline.
  • If custodial parent's desire to work at lower paying job to spend more time with children results in a shift in support costs to other parent, it is a factor that may be considered in setting child support.
  • Where guideline c/s would be detrimental to welfare of child by making it more difficult for mother with minimal timeshare to reunify, no abuse of discretion to deviate and make an above-guideline order.
  • Unjust or inappropriate to apply guideline c/s for an adult child who is away at college and for whom neither parent has “physical responsibility.”
  • Roommate’s rental payments should be considered as money available to H so that C could spend fairly equal time with both parents in habitable surroundings.
  • Court’s concern for F’s financial situation and its impact on on-going ability to care for C justified reduction in retroactive support payments.
  • Court erred in reducing presumptively correct c/s amount based on high consumer debt as special circumstance.
  • Court has discretion to set child support obligation at less than presumptive amount where father supports other children and has large preexisting consumer debt.
  • FC §4055 child support amount may be rebutted by showing that applying formula would be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances; court has discretion to reduce [FC §4057].
  • Court can't consider spousal support received from party to child support proceedings as special circumstance justifying departure from guideline.
  • Curtailing non-custodial parent's discretionary expenses not an "injustice" justifying child support award lower than required under Uniform Guidelines.
  • Addition of 'supplemental child support' payable to attorney to presumed child support in absence of finding of special circumstance is error.
  • Discretion to deviate from guidelines pursuant to FC §4057.5 cannot overcome specific prohibition in FC §4057.5 (b)(2) against considering new mate income.
  • Court abused discretion in departing from guideline support by considering adopted minor's developmental history as "special circumstance."


    •