L.K. v. Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services CA2/1

Filed 3/3/14 L.K. v. Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

L.K., B248177

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS130088) v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert H. O’Brien, Judge. Affirmed. ______ L.K., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Guiterrez, Assistant Attorney General, Richard T. Waldow and Gregory M. Cribbs, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. ______

L.K. appeals in propria persona from the judgment denying her petition for writ of administrative mandate. We affirm. BACKGROUND In our opinion in a previous appeal in this dispute, we summarized the background as follows: “This lawsuit arises out of a child support dispute concerning L.K.’s son, P.G., who was born in 1988. Because P.G. and his father have the same initials, we will refer to them as ‘Son’ and ‘Father’ in order to avoid confusion. “. . . [I]n October 1991, in a paternity suit filed by L.K. against Father, the superior court ordered Father to pay L.K. $3,500 per month as pendente lite child support for Son, retroactive to October 1990. In July 1993, the court entered judgment decreeing that Father is the natural father of Son, and ordering Father to pay child support in the amount of $1,000 per month from June 1, 1993, until Son reached the age of 18 or graduated from high school or became emancipated. Father’s child support obligation thus ended no later than Son’s 18th birthday, in 2006. “In 2007, the Los Angeles Child Support Services Department (CSSD) filed a motion to determine child support arrears. The attorney declaration attached to the motion stated that an audit conducted by the CSSD had determined that Father owed $43,104.02 in child support arrears as of August 3, 2007. On April 22, 2008, the court entered an order on the CSSD’s motion, determining that the arrears were $43,104.02 as of July 31, 2007.” (L.K. v. Golightly (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 641, 642-643.) In or about September 2008, L.K. requested a state hearing, alleging that the CSSD had improperly closed her child support case. An administrative law judge conducted the hearing telephonically on November 4, 2008. “The administrative law judge issued a proposed decision on November 20, 2008, and the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) adopted it as the final decision on December 1, 2008. The decision states that evidence introduced at the hearing showed that from August 2007 through June 2008, the CSSD collected from Father and disbursed to L.K. child support arrears in the amount of $47,161.56. The CSSD contended that interest accounted for the difference between the $43,104.02 in