Case Example

In general, the parent that has the majority of custody receives child support and the parent who has the least amount of custody pays child support. Well, not every case follows the standards. One must be prepared for unusual circumstances and one statement by an attorney or one decision of the judge can turn a case upside down and put it on a track no one expected. In the Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 Cal.App. 4th 1291, the father, with sole custody of one child and 50% custody of the other child was ordered to pay the mother child support. In this case the custodial parent is also the payor of child support, which is unusual. The mother retired at age 42 and requested a child support modification based on change of circumstances, the change of circumstance being her change in income. The father, having full custody of the couple’s special needs child, requested that the court order the mother to turn over the $1,000 per month she received from adoption assistance organization (from the adoption of the special needs child). The father, however, failed to argue the mother’s ability or opportunity to earn money. Thus, the court had no choice but to grant the mother’s request to modify child support, even though she had less custody of the children than the father. 

Proper legal representation can curtail curveballs from derailing your case. Had the father in re Marriage of Bardzik made the point that the mother had the ability and opportunity to earn income, it is probable that he would not have been ordered to pay the mother child support. The father had custody of the children significantly more than the mother and theoretically the mother should pay the father child support based on custodial timeshare. This case is an example of how, without proper and experienced representation, your case could be turned upside down. It is also a great example of case law in support of a child support modification. “Child support in this case is modifiable in that “statewide uniform child support guideline are per se modifiable when application of the current formula and standards would yield a different amount of support (whether higher or lower)” In re Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 CA4th 1291,1303-1304”

Call Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, APC at 310-914-3222 or 818-787-1011 for expert representation and to prevent your case from going sideways.d