California Court of Appeal Feb 7, 2025 No. E083828Unpublished
Filed 2/7/25 Lopez v. Solis CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
DAVID LOPEZ,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083828
v. (Super.Ct.No. FLHE2300992)
SANJEL SOLIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kristi Kirk, Judge.
Affirmed.
Westover Law Group and Andrew L. Westover for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sanjel Solis challenges an order awarding her retroactive child support, arguing
that the trial court erred by not extending the award to an earlier date. We affirm.
1
BACKGROUND
In March 2023, David Lopez filed a petition to determine the parentage of Solis’s
daughter, Sky S., who was born in 2011. Lopez requested joint legal custody and
visitation if he was found to be Sky’s father. Solis opposed the petition, contending that
Lopez was not Sky’s father.
According to the superior court docket, the trial court awarded Solis sole legal and
physical custody of Sky on August 30, 2023, and ordered therapeutic contact between
Sky and Lopez. The record on appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript of that
hearing.
In September 2023, Lopez signed Judicial Council Forms, form FL-235
(Advisement and Waiver of Rights Re: Determination of Parental Relationship) and
acknowledged: “I understand that if I admit that I am the parent of the children in this
action that those children will be my children for legal purposes,” including child
support. He also acknowledged: “I understand that I am admitting that I am the parent of
the children named in the stipulation . . . .”
In February 2024, Solis filed a request for child support for Sky from Lopez in the
child support guideline amount of $832 per month. Solis requested that the court order
the award retroactive under Family Code section 4009 to March 7, 2023, when Lopez
filed the initial pleading in the action. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Family
Code.) Lopez did “not oppose paying California guideline child support to [Solis]
retroactive to the date when the Request for Order was filed on February 1, 2024.”
2
The court held a hearing on Solis’s request for child support in April 2024. Lopez
argued that it was disingenuous for Solis to request that child support be awarded
retroactive to the date that he filed the petition to determine paternity, given that Solis
challenged Lopez’s paternity. Solis argued that section 4009 required the court to order
the award retroactive to the date that Lopez initiated the proceeding.
The court found the child support order to be an original order of child support
under section 4009 and ordered Lopez to pay Solis child support in the amount of $824
per month. The court ordered the award retroactive to August 30, 2023, because that was
when Lopez’s paternity was established.
DISCUSSION
Solis argues that the trial court erred by not awarding child support retroactive to
the date that Lopez filed the petition to determine paternity. We are not persuaded.
Section 4009 provides: “An original order for child support may be made
retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading. If the
parent ordered to pay support was not served with the petition, complaint, or other initial
pleading within 90 days after filing and the court finds that the parent was not
intentionally evading service, the child support order shall be effective no earlier than the
date of service.” We independently review issues of statutory interpretation. (In re
Marriage of Cady & Gamick (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 379, 388.) “‘Our fundamental task
in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the
law’s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and
3
commonsense meaning.’” (Ibid.) “If there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the
language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and we need not resort
to legislative history to determine the statute’s true meaning.” (People v. Cochran (2002)
28 Cal.4th 396, 400-401 (Cochran).) Instead, “‘the plain meaning of the statute
governs.’” (In re Marriage of Barth (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 363, 373 (Barth).)
Solis’s sole argument on appeal is that section 4009 requires that an original child
support award “be made retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other
initial pleading.” (§ 4009.) She contends that the argument is supported by the
legislative history of amendments made effective January 1, 2020. (See Stats. 1999, ch.
653, § 8.) The argument lacks merit.
Section 4009 provides that an original award of child support “may be made
retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading.” (Italics
added.) Section 12 specifies that the use of “‘may’” in the Family Code “is permissive”
while the use of “‘[s]hall’ is mandatory.” The plain language of section 4009 thus allows
the trial court to award child support retroactively “to the date of filing the petition,
complaint, or other initial pleading” but does not require it to make the award retroactive
to any of those dates. (§ 4009.) The interpretation is supported by the second sentence in
section 4009, which provides that if the initial pleading is not served within 90 days and
there is no evidence that the parent being ordered to pay child support intentionally
evaded service, then the award of child support “shall be effective no earlier than the date
of service.” (Ibid.) “[N]o earlier than” means that the date of service operates as a limit
4
on the retroactivity of the award, and the court has discretion to make the award
retroactive to a later date. (Ibid.) Solis does not explain why the Legislature would give
the court discretion to set a later retroactivity date in the second sentence of section 4009
but eliminate such discretion in the first sentence, and we can think of no reason for such
differential treatment. The more reasonable interpretation of the statute is that both
sentences of section 4009 set a limit on retroactivity but give the court discretion to
choose a later date. (See Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [“the ‘plain
meaning’ rule does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a
statute comports with its purpose or whether such a construction of one provision is
consistent with other provisions of the statute”].)
Because the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we presume that “‘the
Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs.’” (Barth,
supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 373.) We accordingly need not analyze the legislative
history of the 2020 amendments in order to ascertain the Legislature’s intent. (Cochran,
supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 400-401; Barth, at p. 373.) Under the plain language of section
4009, the trial court was not required to award Solis child support retroactive to the date
that Lopez petitioned for paternity.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err by not
awarding Solis child support retroactive to the date that Lopez initiated the proceeding.
5
DISPOSITION
The April 25, 2024, order awarding child support is affirmed. Respondent shall
recover his costs of appeal, if any.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court has discretion under Family Code section 4009 to determine the effective date of a retroactive child support order, as the statute's use of the word "may" is permissive rather than mandatory.
Issues
Whether Family Code section 4009 mandates that an original child support order be made retroactive to the date of the filing of the initial pleading.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Section 4009 provides that an original award of child support “may be made retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading.” (Italics added.)”
“The plain language of section 4009 thus allows the trial court to award child support retroactively “to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading” but does not require it to make the award retroactive to any of those dates.”