Request for Order re: Change of Child Support, Sanctions under FCS 271
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 PETER NHO,) Case Number: FPT-24-378443) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ELISE TRAN,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: CINDEE MAYFIELD) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: CHANGE OF CHILD SUPPORT, SANCTIONS UNDER FCS 271 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) Petitioner Peter Nho (Father) and Respondent Elise Tran (Mother) were never married.
They have 18 one minor child, Kayleigh (DOB: 2/15/2020). Father is represented by attorney Amrit Kullar. 19 Mother is self-represented. 20 2) On 8/21/2024, a Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations was filed in related Case No. FCS-24- 21 356892 requiring Father to pay Mother $1,196 per month in child support based on Father’s gross 22 income of $4,857, Mother’s income of $0, and a 0% timeshare for Father. The Judgment also 23 requires Father to provide and maintain health insurance coverage for Kayleigh if available at no 24 or reasonable cost and for the parties to share equally reasonable uninsured healthcare costs for 25 Kayleigh. 26 3) Now on for hearing is Father’s Request for Order filed 4/10/2026 asking the Court to: 27 a.
Determine Mother’s actual income and earning capacity, including income derived from 28 self-employment, business activities, and electronic payment platforms, and impute 29 income to Mother as appropriate.
1 b. Modify any existing wage assignment or child support withholding order to reflect the 2 Court’s new child support determination, and any overpayments or underpayments shall 3 be addressed as equity requires. 4 c. Find that Father currently maintains private health insurance coverage for the minor child
5 at his sole expense and order that Father continue to maintain such coverage so long as it 6 remains available at reasonable cost; credit Father for the cost of the child’s health 7 insurance premiums in the child support calculation; and clarify that Mother shall not 8 terminate or interfere with the child’s medical benefits in a manner inconsistent with the 9 Court’s orders or applicable law. 10 d. Allocate unreimbursed medical, dental, vision, and health-related expenses for the minor 11 child between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, as determined by the 12 Court.
13 e. Consider Mother’s prior representations regarding her income, including statements that 14 she has no income, in light of evidence of ongoing business activity and receipt of funds 15 through multiple payment platforms. To the extent the Court finds such representations 16 incomplete or inaccurate, the Court should draw appropriate adverse inferences in 17 determining Mother’s income and earning capacity. 18 f. Recalculate child support based on Mother’s actual income and earning capacity and 19 made retroactive to the earliest date permitted by law, including but not limited to the 20 date of filing of Father’s Request for Order.
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?”
21 g. Sanction Mother under Family Code section 271 based on her misrepresentations of 22 being unemployed and having no income, compelling Father to file the instant motion 23 4) On 4/13/2026, Father filed an Income and Expense Declaration stating that he works 40 hours per 24 week and earns $36.01 per hour as a truck driver. The Court notes this averages out to $6,242 in 25 gross monthly income. 26 5) Per the Proof of Service filed 4/17/2026, Father’s Request for Order and related papers were 27 mailed to Mother on 4/17/2026. 28 6) Mother did not file a Responsive Declaration. However, on 5/27/2026, Mother filed an Income 29 and Expense Declaration stating she has been a self-employed manicurist for 11 years. Mother
1 attached a Profit and Loss Statement stating that her total monthly average income is $2,000 and 2 her average monthly expenses are $1,200 for average monthly income of $800. Mother reports no 3 other sources of income. Mother states that her expenses total $3,100 per month and $3,000 of 4 her expenses are “paid by others.” Mother states she has “serious health conditions” which
5 “severely limit her ability to maintain a stable job.” Mother did not disclose what health 6 conditions she has, but she attached to her Income and Expense Declaration a summary showing 7 the extensive prescriptions as well as a summary of doctor’s visits. 8 7) The Court notes that per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 5/4/2026, Father has 9 visitation with Kayleigh every Monday for an hour and thirty minutes. 10 B. Findings and Order 11 1) Father states that records he obtained during discovery show that Mother received in excess of 12 $170,000 in Paypal transactions between 2013 and 2026 and $42,943 in Venmo transactions
13 between 2024 through 2026. Father further states that Mother received $2,590 in Venmo deposits 14 in 2026 “alone”. If these representations are true, these transactions show less than $3,000 per 15 month in “income.” Father also states that Mother received deposits to her Bank of America 16 account between 12/18/2024 and 1/17/2025 totaling $7,919.76 and between 12/18/2025 and 17 1/16/2026 totaling $7,628.44. The Court does not find that Mother is making significant income 18 and because none of these figures provide any information about Mother’s business expenses, the 19 Court is unable to draw a conclusion regarding what amount in net self-employment income 20 Mother may be earning.
21 2) Even if the Court were to impute full-time San Francisco minimum wage income of $19.18 per 22 hour to Mother (which Father has not shown Mother has the ability to earn), guideline child 23 support would amount to $1,173 as shown in the attached XSpouse calculation. This is because 24 Father is currently earning more than he was previously and he has less than 1% timeshare with 25 Kayleigh. 26 3) The Court does not find that Father has demonstrated a change in circumstance warranting a 27 downward modification of child support and Father’s request to modify child support downward 28 is DENIED. The Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations filed on 8/21/2024 shall remain in full 29 force and effect.
1 4) In his declaration, Father states he is “concerned that Respondent may interfere with or attempt to 2 alter the child’s medical coverage in connection with ongoing disputes.” The Court finds this 3 statement does not establish good cause for Father’s request that the Court “clarify that Mother 4 shall not terminate or interfere with the child’s medical benefits in a manner inconsistent with the
5 Court’s orders or applicable law.” This request is denied without prejudice to a proper showing. 6 5) Father’s request for Family Code section 271 attorney’s fees sanctions is denied. 7 6) Father’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 8 7) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within
9 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 10 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 11 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 12 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within
13 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 14 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 15
19
23
27
nho v. tran xspouse.xsp Xspouse 2026-1-CA
Fixed Shares Father Mother Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 1 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 0.00 % 0.00 % Comb. net spendable 7927 7963 Filing status SINGLE HH/MLA GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 1 * 2 * Nets(adjusted) Father Wages+salary 6242 3325 Father 4692 Payment cost/benefit -1173 -1005 Self-employed income 0 0 Mother 3235 Net spendable income 3519 3687 Other taxable income 0 0 Total 7927 Change from guideline 0 168 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 44% 46% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 464% 1173 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 1334 1110 S.Clara SS 0 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 1173 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 - CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Settings changed Net wage paycheck 4490 4490 Health insurance 216 0 Mother Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 1173 1041 Property tax expense 0 0 Net spendable income 4408 4276 Ded interest expense 0 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 -132 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 56% 54% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 1229 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% -364% 0 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 89 277 1229 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 36 # withholding allowances 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 1 Net wage paycheck 2781 2781 Child care expenses 0 0 Released to Father
Father pays Guideline CS, Proposed CS
FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information Timeshare cce(F) cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor All children 0 - 100 0 0 0 Father 1173 Father 1173 Father
0 - 100 0 0 0 Father 1173 Father 1173 Father
Time: 03:02:17 Superior Court of California Date: 06/12/26 County of San Francisco