E.E. v. E.G. CA5

Filed 11/20/20 E.E. v. E.G. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

E.E., F079489 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCS011912) v.

E.G., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ronda Duncan, Temporary Judge. E.G., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. E.E., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant, E.G., appeals from the trial court’s order establishing the amount of child support arrears owed by him to respondent, E.E., under a child support order. Appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to grant certain equitable offsets or credits

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

he requested, and/or by incorrectly determining that he failed to pay child support. We conclude that appellant has failed to meet his burden of affirmatively demonstrating reversible error with an adequate record and cogent legal argument. The order of the trial court, which is presumed to be correct, is accordingly affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant’s and respondent’s marriage ended by divorce in 2010. They had three children. Their oldest child was born in March 1994; the middle child was born in July 1996; and their youngest child was born in November 1999. A child support order was issued by the trial court and required appellant to pay respondent $1,200 per month. The monthly child support obligation was apparently to continue until the youngest child turned 18 or graduated from high school. According to respondent, the youngest child graduated in June 2018. Initially, the child support payments were garnished directly from appellant’s wages. However, in June of 2014, the parties agreed to discontinue the garnishment of appellant’s wages. According to respondent, appellant had requested that wage garnishment be stopped to give him an opportunity to get “back on his feet” financially, and respondent agreed. For several years after the parties’ divorce, appellant lived in a trailer on respondent’s land and paid rent. According to respondent, in June of 2018 she requested that appellant remove the trailer and leave. At that time, she also inquired about the past child support that was still unpaid. Appellant allegedly responded that it was too late to ask him for payment of child support, since he no longer had any child support obligation to her now that the youngest child had graduated. At that point, respondent sought the help and guidance of Madera County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), and DCSS informed her that appellant still had a legal obligation to pay her the past due child support he owed from June 2014 to June 2018.