Dixon v. Dixon

California Supreme Court Sep 27, 1932 No. Docket No. L.A. 13564.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a father is legally obligated to support his minor child regardless of prior divorce decrees or foreign age-of-majority laws, but it reversed the award of attorney's fees because they were for past services.

Issues

Whether a father's support obligation for a minor child is superseded by a foreign divorce decree or the child reaching the age of majority in another state.
Whether the trial court had the authority to award attorney's fees for services already performed in an action for child support.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the failure of a father to provide necessary support and maintenance for his minor child has been a criminal offense. This is true regardless of agreements, property settlements, decree of divorce”

“Neither the age of majority in Oklahoma nor the provisions of a decree of divorce in that jurisdiction have any bearing whatsoever on this issue.”

“the allowance of attorney’s fees in this case was not for future services, but for services already performed and such an allowance is not authorized.”

PRESTON, J.

Plaintiff, alleging her indigence, as well as that of her adopted daughter, in this action sued her former husband for the support of said daughter, a minor, born on February 24, 1912. Defendant resisted the action, denying adoption of the daughter and further pleading that in the year 1919 plaintiff secured from him in the state of

[442]

Oklahoma a divorce upon, grounds of cruelty, by which decree the custody of said daughter was awarded to plaintiff and defendant was required to pay plaintiff certain sums for the support and maintenance of said daughter until she reached the age of eighteen years, which is a majority in that state; that she reached that age prior to the filing of this action and that he faithfully observed the order of the court of Oklahoma with respect to such maintenance, thus being relieved from any further liability for her support.

The facts are that about the year 1922, plaintiff and the daughter removed to California and subsequent to that date defendant also took up his residence in this state. The indigence of the mother and daughter is conceded and the ability of the defendant to respond to the order of the court is also apparent.

Upon trial of the cause the court found against the defendant on all issues and ordered payment by him of the sum of $75 per month for the support and maintenance of said daughter, to which was added the sum of $150 as counsel fees and $23.15 as costs. From the judgment so entered, defendant has appealed.

Since the recasting of section 270 of the Penal Code by the act of 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 592), the failure of a father to provide necessary support and maintenance for his minor child has been a criminal offense. This is true regardless of agreements, property settlements, decree of divorce or decrees respecting custody or maintenance of the minor, affecting the husband and wife. All doubt or confusion on this subject has also been settled by recent decisions of this court.

(Federal Mutual etc. Co.

Industrial Acc. Com.,

195 Cal. 283 [233 Pac. 335]

Dixon v. Dixon

AI Brief

PRESTON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief