http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/76/150.html
This case unfortunately, suffered from more than just a few steps that could have been avoided to begin with. Basically the father was trying to either lower the child support/or not have fair market value rent imputed for support. The key to something like this is to find out ahead of time, what is really going on and why. Then to look at visitation, support, and how some changes of facts might then change the outcome. Instead, it appears that father's attorney did not do any of those things, and when the judge ruled against father, he paid for an appeal.
...."In calculating child support, the state's top priority is the interests of the children. (Fam. Code, § 4053, subd. (e).) Supporting a child according to the parent's circumstances and station in life is a parent's first and principal obligation. (Fam. Code, § 4053, subd. (a).) Child support orders must ensure that children receive sufficient support. (Fam. Code, § 4053, subd. (l).) Just as a parent cannot shirk his parental obligations by reducing his earning capacity through unemployment or underemployment, he cannot shirk the obligation to support his child by underutilizing income-producing-producing assets as well as from work is in accord [76 Cal. App. 4th 155] with the legislative intent.
Although this is an older case, attorney found it to be interesting, as before attorney relocated to San Diego, the Appellant used to work for another attorney in our shared law office with several other lawyers, across from Arden Fair Mall in Sacramento. [It is true that Appellant had later become quite ill as he suffered a stroke and also was later not able to work for awhile, I did not do Mr. Dacumos' family law case.]
BUT had I been the one who was going to do the case, I would not have handled the case the way his attorney did at the trial level. It would be inevitable that knowing the ex wife made far more than Father did, he could have first started to modify his time share; talked to several attorneys before hand, and should have attempted to pay even a minimum on arrears. That's at a minimum.
Then, worked with the ex's new attorney later, to settle the case.It's likely the settlement would not have produced this appeal, but it would have saved the Father from spending more money for an appeal in the first place, and he could have hopefully got more time with his son. I would be willing to bet that whoever he hired, was not a litigator, as they could have told the Father that the market rental value would be used, or at least looked it up and found that out AHEAD of time, and then settled the case.
By then, I was not living in Sacramento, but I believe that another family member who didn’t earn much, was living in the Bay area rental temporarily. (Obviously, that shows the Father wasn’t the mean person the court would have one think...)
