Request for Order for child and spousal support
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
5. AN MARY DIAZ V. IVAN DEMETRIO LEON DIAZ 25FL0092
Petitioner filed a Requested for Order (RFO) on October 31, 2025, seeking child and spousal support. She concurrently filed an Income and Expense Declaration. Respondent was electronically served on November 10, 2025.
Respondent filed his Income and Expense Declaration on January 20, 2026 and his Income and Expense Declaration on January 26, 2026. Due to a procedural error, the matter was continued to the present date.
On April 9th, Respondent filed and served a Supplemental Declaration of Respondent and his updated Income and Expense Declaration.
Petitioner filed and served her updated Income and Expense Declaration on April 15. She filed and served a Declaration of Attorney & Memorandum of Points & Authorities th
on April 17th.
Petitioner is requesting child and spousal support back to the date of filing the Petition. She asks that support be set to $0 until August 1, 2025, which is the first full month the parties did not reside together. She also requests equal division of child support add-ons.
Respondent asks that Petitioner be imputed with full-time income at $106 per hour plus health insurance, retirement, and parking. He asks that the court deny the request for retroactive child support and order shared childcare costs only after the right of first refusal has been given and Respondent’s mother is also not available to provide childcare. Finally, he asks the court to deny spousal support in its entirety or, alternatively, set a termination date due to the short term nature of the marriage.
An award of temporary spousal support lies solely within the trial court’s discretion regarding each party’s respective need and ability to pay. See Marriage of Tong & Samson, 197 Cal. App. 4th 23, 29 (2011). As discussed by both parties in their respective briefs, support may be reduced based on the imputation of income. The amount of income imputed is to be based on that spouse’s measurable earning capacity which is determined by (1) the ability of the spouse to earn consistent with the spouse’s health, age, education, marketable skills, and employment history; and (2) the opportunity available for employment. In re Marriage of Simpson, 4 Cal. 4th 225 (1992)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
court would be inclined to impute both parties with full-time income based on their present earnings however the court is concerned that doing so may result in a shortfall in the amount of support actually being paid which certainly would not be in the best interests of the children. That said, the court is adopting the Xspouse report attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Attorney & Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Petitioner on April 17, 2026.
Utilizing the same figures as outlined in Petitioner’s Exhibit B, the court finds that child support is $814 per month and spousal support per the Alameda formula is $524 per month. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner $1,338 per month as and for child support and temporary spousal support, payable on the 1st of the month until further order of the court or legal termination. This order is effective as of November 1, 2025.
The court finds the above order results in arrears in the amount of $8,028 through and including April 1, 2026. The court orders Respondent pay Petitioner $669 on the 15th of each month commencing on May 15, 2026 and continuing until paid in full (approximately 12 months). If any payment is late or missed the remaining balance is due in full with legal interest within five (5) days.
In addition to the foregoing monthly support payments, the parties are ordered to equally share in any uninsured medical care costs for the children and childcare costs when such costs are incurred as a result of employment or necessary education for employment. The parties are ordered to follow the procedures set forth in the attached FL- 192.
Each party shall claim one minor child for tax purposes. The parties are to meet and confer to agree upon who will claim which child. If they cannot agree, the parties are to alternate claiming the children. Petitioner to claim the younger child on even tax years and the older child on odd tax years. Respondent to claim the younger child on odd tax years and the older child on even tax years.
Petitioner is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #5: THE COURT IS ADOPTING THE XSPOUSE REPORT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT B TO THE DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY & MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES FILED BY PETITIONER ON APRIL 17, 2026.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
UTILIZING THE SAME FIGURES AS OUTLINED IN PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT B, THE COURT FINDS THAT CHILD SUPPORT IS $814 PER MONTH AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT PER THE ALAMEDA FORMULA IS $524 PER MONTH. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO PAY PETITIONER $1,338 PER MONTH AS AND FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT, PAYABLE ON THE 1ST OF THE MONTH UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT OR LEGAL TERMINATION. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2025.
THE COURT FINDS THE ABOVE ORDER RESULTS IN ARREARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,028 THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 1, 2026. THE COURT ORDERS RESPONDENT PAY PETITIONER $669 ON THE 15TH OF EACH MONTH COMMENCING ON MAY 15, 2026 AND CONTINUING UNTIL PAID IN FULL (APPROXIMATELY 12 MONTHS). IF ANY PAYMENT IS LATE OR MISSED THE REMAINING BALANCE IS DUE IN FULL WITH LEGAL INTEREST WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS.
IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING MONTHLY SUPPORT PAYMENTS, THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO EQUALLY SHARE IN ANY UNINSURED MEDICAL CARE COSTS FOR THE CHILDREN AND CHILDCARE COSTS WHEN SUCH COSTS ARE INCURRED AS A RESULT OF EMPLOYMENT OR NECESSARY EDUCATION FOR EMPLOYMENT. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED FL-192.
EACH PARTY SHALL CLAIM ONE MINOR CHILD FOR TAX PURPOSES. THE PARTIES ARE TO MEET AND CONFER TO AGREE UPON WHO WILL CLAIM WHICH CHILD. IF THEY CANNOT AGREE, THE PARTIES ARE TO ALTERNATE CLAIMING THE CHILDREN. PETITIONER TO CLAIM THE YOUNGER CHILD ON EVEN TAX YEARS AND THE OLDER CHILD ON ODD TAX YEARS. RESPONDENT TO CLAIM THE YOUNGER CHILD ON ODD TAX YEARS AND THE OLDER CHILD ON EVEN TAX YEARS.
PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.