(a)The amount of child support established by the formula provided in subdivision (a) of Section 4055 is presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be ordered.
(b)The presumption of subdivision (a) is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case, consistent with the principles set forth in Section 4053, because one or more of the following factors is found to be applicable by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court states in writing or on the record
the information required in subdivision (a) of Section 4056:
(1)The parties have stipulated to a different amount of child support under subdivision (a) of Section 4065.
(2)The sale of the family residence is deferred pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 3800) of Part 1 and the rental value of the family residence where the children reside exceeds the mortgage payments, homeowner’s insurance, and property taxes. The amount of any adjustment pursuant to this paragraph shall not be greater than the excess amount.
(3)The parent being ordered to
pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children.
(4)A party is not contributing to the needs of the children at a level commensurate with that party’s custodial time.
(5)A support obligor qualifies for the low-income adjustment pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 4055 and the amount of child support established by the formula exceeds 50 percent of the support obligor’s net disposable income as defined in Section 4059 after application of the low-income adjustment. The amount of any adjustment pursuant to this paragraph shall not be greater than the amount
exceeding 50 percent of the support obligor’s net disposable income.
(6)Application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances in the particular case. These special circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:
(A)Cases in which the parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children.
(B)Cases in which both parents have substantially equal time-sharing of the children and one parent has a much lower or higher percentage of income used for housing than the other parent.
(C)Cases in which the children have special medical or other needs that could require child support that would be greater than the formula amount.
(D)Cases in which a child is found to have more than two parents.
(c)If the court is made aware that a parent is subject to multiple court orders to pay child support arising from a different case or cases, the court may take steps to determine how
to allocate the parent’s income and support obligation appropriately across the cases. A court that continues a hearing based on a party’s representation that it will file an appropriate request to modify support in a related case may issue a temporary support order.
(d)This section shall be operative September 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
In re Marriage of Drake, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
In re Marriage of Drake, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “" (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b).) Finally, Family Code section 4074 provides broadly that "[t]his article applies to an award for the support of children, including those awards designated as `family support,' that contain provisions for the support of children as well as for…”
Estevez v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 423 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “Estevez maintained he was an extraordinarily high-income earner within the meaning of subdivision (e) of former Civil Code section 4721 (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b)(3)), and that any amount of child support calculated in accordance with the guideline would far exceed the…”
Mejia v. Reed, 74 P.3d 166 (Cal. 2003).
“2d 755 ]); and (2) a court may deem assets a “special circumstance” (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b)(5)) that may justify a departure from the guideline figure for support payments (In re Marriage of Loh (2001) 93 Cal.”
In re Marriage of Berger, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b)(5), italics added.”
In re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal. App. 4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “) 8 Family Code section 4057, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part: “The presumption of subdivision (a) [that the amount of child support established by the guideline formula is correct] is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by…”
In re Marriage of Usher, 6 Cal. App. 5th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“2 Family Code section 4057, subdivision (a) provides that the amount of child support established by the complex formula of Family Code section 4055—a formula that relies heavily on the parents’ monthly disposable income—is presumed correct.”
Cnty. of Orange v. Smith, 132 Cal. App. 4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“The second reason was that, if the $600 was not construed as income to the father, there were nonetheless special circumstances which compelled a departure from the guideline formula, per Family Code section 4057, subdivision (b)(5).”
In re Marriage of Chandler, 60 Cal. App. 4th 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “" (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b)(3).) But the judge was faced by another statutory consideration besides need the idea that "[c]hildren should share in the standard of living of both parents" (Fam.”
In re Marriage of Hubner, 94 Cal. App. 4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“” William argued his admission established his status as an “extraordinarily high income earner” (Fam. Code, § 4057, subd. (b)(3)), and relieved him from the obligation to comply with Ursula’s discovery requests.”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Funches, 75 Cal. App. 4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “) Family Code section 4057 establishes a rebuttable presumption that the appropriate level of support is that established by the guidelines; the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the guideline amount is “unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances in the…”
Finley v. Scott, 687 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
“at 475 (quoting Cal. Fam. Code § 4057 (b) (West 1994)). The court noted that applying the guideline to Estevez's income would require him to pay $35,000 per month in child support, and opposing counsel conceded that "such an award would be absurd.”
Marriage of Left, No. B248856 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2016).
· cites it 3× “(Fam. Code, § 4057.) However, the presumption is rebuttable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.