CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Child Support
......Current C/S Guidelines
.........Rebutting Presumptive Amount
............Wealthy Payor
 21 Cards On This Topic:
  • Presumptive amount may be rebutted by showing that paying parent has extraordinarily high income and presumed support would exceed needs of child.
  • Child support may improve standard of living of custodial household to improve lives of children.
  • The "needs" of children of wealthy parents are determined by the standard of living attainable by the income available, not by an objective standard or by the manner the parents' income is expended and their resulting lifestyle.
  • When deviating from guideline, the trial ct. must do more than issue conclusory findings; it must ••articulate why•• it believes the guideline amount exceeded the child's needs and why the deviation is in the child's best interests.
  • To deviate from guideline, the trial ct. need only determine guideline support exceeds the children's needs, not that guideline support would be detrimental to their interests.
  • The trial ct. did not abuse its discretion in finding H an exceptionally high earner for c/s purposes based on income statistics.
  • Trial ct. improperly placed the burden of justifying a guideline award on Mother, and improperly relied on her historical expenses, rather than on F's disposable income and lifestyle, to determine C's reasonable needs.
  • Trial court need not rubber stamp mother's request in exceptionally high earner income case and defer to guideline c/s amount.
  • Payor claiming high income exception to guideline has burden of showing that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate and a lower award would be consistent with Cs’ best interests.
  • Court did not abuse its discretion in setting c/s and s/s that exceeded H's monthly income where his extensive property holdings and special circumstances allowed deviation from guidelines.
  • Trial ct. must first determine guideline child support based on exceptionally high earning payor's actual income before determining whether a downward departure is required.
  • Burden is on payor to establish what constitutes extraordinarily high income; $350,000 income cap unsubstantiated— amount varies by geographical area.
  • Great income discrepancies exist within the class of persons whose incomes are extraordinarily high and this discrepancy can affect the child’s needs.
  • Trial court may not order a portion of child support in high income cases set aside in trust for child's special needs and college absent extraordinary factual showing.
  • Drastic deviation from guideline amount in high income case would be an abuse of discretion.
  • Reversible error for court not to state reasons in writing or on record per Fam. Code §4056 when making support award which differs from guideline.
  • Support award which did not comport with F's extraordinarily high income and standard of living was abuse of discretion.
  • A "common sense" test for determining the reasonableness of an extraordinarily high earner c/s order is it is less than a non-extraordinarily high earner would have paid under the guideline.
  • W properly awarded portion of H's future bonuses as additional child support.
  • Child should share in wealthy parent's standard of living.
  • Other issues relating to high income child support payors.


    •