child support hearing in California

2020(Popenhager, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 523 .) If the trial court was relying on Popenhager to award Father a higher timeshare as a matter of equity, based on Mother’s interference with his visitation rights, the trial court erred for reasons discussed post. 6 Mother objected, citing section 3556, and arguing “support shouldn’t be set at zero because of the visitation and custody being what it is, regardless of any perceived refusal by the custodial parent implementing rights to visitation.”5 The parties next appeared for a child support hearing in September 2017.

2020(Popenhager, supra, 99 Cal.App.3d at p. 523 .) If the trial court was relying on Popenhager to award Father a higher timeshare as a matter of equity, based on Mother’s interference with his visitation rights, the trial court erred for reasons discussed post. 6 Mother objected, citing section 3556, and arguing “support shouldn’t be set at zero because of the visitation and custody being what it is, regardless of any perceived refusal by the custodial parent implementing rights to visitation.”5 The parties next appeared for a child support hearing in September 2017.

2020We reject Wesley’s contention the child support hearing fell “far short of the Elkins mandate.” Wesley’s reliance on In re Marriage of Zywiciel (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1078 (Zywiciel), is also misplaced.

2020Since we can find no indication the judge considered section 4320 and exercised her independent judgment in arriving at her award, we cannot uphold it.” (Zywiciel, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1083 .) Here, unlike in Zywiciel, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th 1078 , the record shows that, although the child support hearing was conducted somewhat informally, with a lengthy discussion between counsel and the court, along with occasional responses by Wesley, the entire hearing was on the record, evidence was presented, and there were no objections to the manner in which the hearing was conducted.

2020CHILD SUPPORT HEARING Wesley contends the child support hearing on October 29, 2018, was not conducted in accordance with Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337 (Elkins).

2007Although the court referred to local rules applicable to family law motions and contested trials under which declarations could be admitted in evidence ( id. at p. 1427 & fn. 5, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ), the court did not consider Evidence Code section 1200, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, or Family Code section 210, provisions the court, of course, lacked authority to disregard.

2007Although the court referred to local rules applicable to family law motions and contested trials under which declarations could be admitted in evidence ( id. at p. 1427 & fn. 5, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 ), the court did not consider Evidence Code section 1200, Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, or Family Code section 210, provisions the court, of course, lacked authority to disregard.

1983(See Shelley v. Shelley, supra, 354 P.2d 282, at p. 285 ; and cases cited therein; 44 Cal.L.Rev., supra, pp. 618-619.) These authorities then proceed to point to the public policy consideration that whereas a general creditor has achieved his status merely by voluntarily extending credit to the beneficiary, a child is owed a duty of support by his parent which is established by statute and is based upon solid grounds of public policy.” But in Estate of Johnston we felt compelled—by the force of Civil Code section 859, seemingly stating that a child support claim against the beneficiary of an o