Schrader v. Watts CA2/6

Filed 2/20/25 Schrader v. Watts CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ERIC SCHRADER, 2d Civ. No. B330648 (Super. Ct. No. 17FL-0248) Petitioner and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

STEPHANIE WATTS,

Respondent and Appellant.

Stephanie Watts (Mother) appeals an order requiring her to pay child support to Eric Schrader (Father). She contends the family court should not have considered cash payments she received from her parents during the proceedings as “income” for the purposes of calculating support under Family Code section 4058.1 She also contends the court violated her due process

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Family

Code.

rights when it ordered her to pay retroactive support. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and Father began divorce proceedings in San Luis Obispo County in 2017. Their only child, daughter S.S., was born in 2015. The family court entered a status-only judgment of dissolution in 2020. S.S. initially lived with Mother after the couple separated but started living full time with Father in August of 2019. A protracted custody dispute followed, driven by Mother’s allegations that Father and paternal grandmother had abused S.S. The family court held a trial on custody and visitation over 17 days from February to June of 2022. It eventually awarded Father sole legal and physical custody and imposed restrictions on Mother’s visitation. Father requested an order modifying his child support payment shortly after S.S. moved in with him in August of 2019. The family court did not hold a hearing on his request until November of 2022—several months after the custody trial finished, and more than three years after he filed the request. It ordered Mother to pay temporary support to Father of $450.00 a month “without prejudice to either party’s claims at the time of further hearing.” Trial on permanent support took place over two days in May of 2023. The parties testified to earning modest incomes: Father as a union bricklayer, and Mother as a former prison employee on disability retirement. They described how their respective families paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to fund their custody litigation. Each described the payments as loans. Several family members testified that they expected Mother and Father to repay the loans when they