Request for Order Child Support; Allocation of 4062/4063 Costs
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 KAMI KINKAID,) Case Number: FDI-25-800862) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 RICHARD KIM,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: JERILYN BORACK) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER CHILD SUPPORT, & ALLOCATION OF 4062/4063 COSTS PER FCS 4061 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) The parties are Petitioner Kami Kinkaid and Respondent Richard Kim.
They share two minor 18 children: Tatum (DOB: 5/28/11) and Nelson (DOB: 4/19/15). There are no prior child custody or 19 child support orders in this case. 20 2) On 1/24/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution indicating the date of marriage is 9/13/08 21 and date of separation is March 2023 for a marriage of 14 years and 7 months. 22 3) On 3/25/25, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution also indicating the date of 23 marriage is 9/13/08 and date of separation is March 2023 for a marriage of 14 years and 7 24 months. 25 4) On 3/19/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 26 5) On 3/27/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking guideline child support and allocation of 27 Family Code section 4062 and 4063 costs pursuant to Family Code section 4061.
Petitioner 28 asserts she has a 95% timeshare with the minor children and lost her job, so she needs 29
1 Respondent to pay child support and contribute to the minor children’s expenses including private 2 school tuition and extracurricular expenses. 3 6) On 5/14/26, Respondent filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 4 7) On 5/15/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s Request for 5 Order. Respondent asserts that Petitioner has a significantly higher earning capacity than 6 Respondent. Respondent requests the Court issue a seek work order on Petitioner and impute her 7 with minimum wage income as Respondent believes Petitioner is consulting as an independent 8 contractor.
Respondent additionally requests that the children’s expenses be split evenly between 9 the parties, which Respondent asserts is how the expenses were split historically. Respondent 10 states he has significant financial debt. 11 8) On 5/19/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking joint legal and joint physical custody 12 and a week-on/week-off parenting timeshare. This matter is set for hearing on 7/6/26. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) The Court finds good cause to continue Petitioner’s Request for Order seeking guideline child 15 support and allocation of Family Code section 4062 and 4063 costs pursuant to Family Code 16 section 4061 given that there is an initial child custody and visitation hearing on 7/6/26; therefore, 17 the parenting timeshare may change. 18 2) Nevertheless, the Court further finds good cause to issue an interim child support order since 19 Mother became unemployed in February 2026. 20 3) Petitioner’s request for guideline child support is therefore GRANTED effective 3/27/26 (i.e., the 21 date Mother filed the Request for Order). 22 4) In accordance with the XSpouse report attached hereto and incorporated herein, Respondent shall 23 pay Petitioner $1,891 in guideline monthly child support by the 1st of every month commencing 24 6/1/26. 25 5) The XSpouse report is based on the following findings: 26 a.
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?”
Per Petitioner’s Income and Expense Declaration filed 3/19/26, Petitioner receives $1,950 27 in monthly unemployment. 28 b. Per Respondent’s Income and Expense Declaration filed 5/14/26, Respondent: (a) earns 29 $5,000 in average monthly income and $1,481 in average monthly self-employment
1 income; (b) pays $500 in average monthly health insurance premiums; and (c) pays $957 2 in property taxes and $1,250 in deductible interest expenses. 3 6) The Court reserves jurisdiction over: 4 a. The child support order retroactive to 1/24/25 (i.e., the filing date of the petition); 5 b. Any child support arrears Respondent may owe to Petitioner; 6 c. Respondent’s request the Court issue a seek work order on Petitioner; 7 d. Respondent’s request for imputation of minimum wage income to Petitioner; and 8 e.
Petitioner’s request for allocation of Family Code section 4062 and 4063 costs pursuant 9 to Family Code section 4061. 10 7) Counsel for Petitioner shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 11 8) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 12 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 13 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 14 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 15 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 16 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 17 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 18
22
26
26-05-28 XSpouse Kincaid v. Kim 800862
Xspouse 2026-1-CA Monthly Figures 2026 Father Mother Monthly Figures Cash Flow Fixed Shares 0 2 2026 Guideline Proposed Number of children Percent 5.00% 0.00% Combined net spendable 6791 7229 time with NCP Filing status SINGLE HH/MLA Percent change 0% 6% GUIDELINE Number of exemptions 1 3 Nets (adjusted) Father Wages and salary 5000 0 Self employed income 1481 0 Father 4841 Payment cost/benefit -1891 -1627 Other taxable income 0 1950 Mother 1950 Net spendable income 2950 3214 TANF CS received 0 0 Total 6791 Change from guideline 0 263 Other nontaxable income 0 0 Support % of combined spendable 43% 44% New spouse income 0 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 60% Addons 0 Employee 401-k contribution 0 0 Total taxes 1140 702 Guideln CS 1891 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 S.Clara SS 0 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 Total 1891 CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Net wage paycheck 3866 3866 - Health insurance 500 0 Mother Settings changed Other medical expenses 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 1891 2065 Proposed Property tax expenses 957 0 Net spendable income 3841 4015 Ded interest expense Tactic 9 1250 0 Change from guideline 0 175 Contribution deduction 0 0 CS 2065 % of combined spendable 57% 56% Misc tax deductions 0 0 SS 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 40% Qualified business income Total 2065 0 0 Total taxes 0 0 deduction Saving 438 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Required union dues 0 0 Releases 2 # withholding allowances 0 0 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Net wage paycheck 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 0 Child care expenses 0 0
Father pays Guideline CS, Proposed CS
FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information DOB Timeshare cce(F) cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor All children 5 - 95 0 0 0 Father 1,891 Father 1,891 Father 0000-00-00 5 - 95 0 0 0 Father 709 Father 709 Father 0000-00-00 5 - 95 0 0 0 Father 1,182 Father 1,182 Father
Superior Court of California County of San Francisco