Sonoma County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Ceja CA1/3

Filed 2/3/26 Sonoma County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Ceja CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SONOMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173187 v. MIGUEL CEJA, (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant; Super. Ct. No. 24FL00261) JANNA THOMAS, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

At the request of the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), the trial court ordered Miguel Ceja to pay guideline child support. On appeal, he argues the court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a below- guideline order. We affirm. BACKGROUND Ceja and Janna Thomas have three children together. At the time the trial court issued its child support order, the children were 14, six, and four years old. The children spend five percent of their time with Ceja, and the remainder with Thomas. The parents were never married, and Ceja runs his own window cleaning business.

1

In May 2024, DCSS filed a complaint and sought a guideline child support order.1 It alleged Ceja earned a gross monthly income of $6,550. It calculated that amount after examining his profits and losses as reflected in 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax documents. (It subtracted his expenses from revenue in 2023 — the same as in 2022 — to arrive at $78,595 in profit. It then divided by 12, to arrive at a monthly income of $6,550 per month.) Ceja disagreed with DCSS’s request, and he instead asked the trial court to set his monthly income at $2,500 to “accommodate [his] seasonal and fluctuating income during November through April”; he also asked the court to consider his “special circumstances” — “a tax debt that is over $45,000.” He stated he learned of the debt when he hired a tax person to help him prepare documents for DCSS. He provided receipts from the Internal Revenue Service showing he made payments totaling $5,300 towards back taxes in September and October. Handwritten notes on the receipts indicated he still owed approximately $29,000. In December, he filed an income and expense declaration stating he owed $35,000 in past due taxes. Meanwhile, Thomas filed an income and expense declaration indicating she averaged $4,336 in monthly wages and received $3,120 in social security payments for the children. The trial court held a hearing on December 18, and determined Ceja had a gross monthly income of $5,192 from his business.2 It ordered him to pay $1,812 per month in guideline child support.