Posts Tagged ‘Child Support,’


■ MISSOURI: Cultural Development & Cellular Phone

on August 15, 2010 in Appellate Reviews No Comments »

No Evidence That Expense Of The Cellular Phone Was Necessary for Children’s Cultural Development

Missouri, July 6, 2010: Father objected, but Mother asked and the trial court included payment for the children’s cell phone costs an extraordinary expense,as additional child support. Father appealed, and Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District reversed.

The Court, in the Case of Pickering. v. Pickering, WD71489, noted that Mother did not provide any  evidence that the children’s use of cell phones is integral to, or even associated with, an activity intended to enhance the athletic, social or cultural development of the children.

For the complete texts of the Decisions, send an e-mail to Admin.

■ CALIFORNIA: False Proof Of Service Of Petition & Summons Invalidates Judgment of Child Support

on July 22, 2010 in Appellate Reviews No Comments »
For a Judgment of child support to be valid, the Summons and Petition establishing the support must be personally served. A fraudulent declare of service of Summons and Petition, violates the due process rights of the supporting parent, and  renders the subsequent Judgment void and unenforceable.
This is the summary of the decision in the case of County of San Diego v. Graham, reached by the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego), filed on July 21, 2010.
In this Case, the supporting father, Artis Earl Gorham appealed from an order of San Diego Court, denying his motions to set aside a 1998 default judgment obtained against him by the County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and to dismiss the action. He argued that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over him in this case because he was never served with a summons and complaint contrary to the fraudulent representation of the process server’s return, and, therefore, the judgment was void. Further, the summons and complaint were not served on him within three years of the date this action was commenced, which requires mandatory dismissal of the case under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court of Appeal agreed.
To receive the full text of the decision, send a request to Admin.

■ CALIFORNIA: Father Must Pay Child Support to Stepfather

on July 13, 2010 in Appellate Reviews, On California Law No Comments »

Father must Pay Child Support to Stepfather for 18 year-old Highschool Student

July 07, 2007, Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento:
After death of mother (M), father (F) shared custody of their daughter (D), with her stepfather (SF). The Court ordered F to pay SF $ 900 each month in child support. One month before turning 18, and Four months before graduation of D from high school, F filed papers with the Court to reduce the child support to zero. The trial court denied F’s motion. The Appellate Court confirmed. On appeal, F argued that as a matter of law, absent express agreement, a trial court cannot order a parent to pay support to third parties. F also agreed neither he nor SF had “primary physical responsibility” for D therefore the guideline support should not be maintained. The Appellate Court rejected both arguments and found that : 1) The F’s offer to the court to pay $ 900 per month in support was an expressed agreement, and 2) A pre-18th birthday guideline child support will continue after the child’s 18th birthday when she is a full time high school student.

Courts Reports

on July 9, 2010 in Courts Reports No Comments »

TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT BASED ON HOURLY INCOME OF THE HUSBAND  PLUS  % OF ANY ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS 

 July 6, 2010, Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Court House:

The Court ordered temporary spousal support based on the base hourly income of the Husband plus 35% of any extra payments received by him on a monthly basis.

Wife requested monthly support payments based on the Year To Date income of the Husband for the past 6 months.

Husband proposed support payment based on his base hourly income plus additional payment at the end of the year.

The Court disagreed. The Court stated that the Ostler-Smith Rule (which allows payment of support on a based salary plus percentage of the fluctuated income) applies to any situation where income of a support obligor changes from one month to another.