Marriage of Cunningham CA2/6

Filed 6/3/22 Marriage of Cunningham CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of JENNIFER 2d Civil No. B313700 and JOHN PAUL (Super. Ct. No. D372438) CUNNINGHAM. (Ventura County)

JOHN PAUL CUNNINGHAM,

Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER CUNNINGHAM,

Respondent;

VENTURA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Respondent.

John Paul Cunningham appeals from the trial court’s order modifying a prior child support order. He contends: (1) the

court lacked authority to reduce the amount of income imputed to his ex-wife, Jennifer Cunningham, for purposes of recalculating his child support payments, (2) the court violated his due process rights because it did not provide notice that it would reduce the amount of her imputed income, and (3) substantial evidence does not support the modified order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY John and Jennifer1 married in 1997. They had four children together. The two separated in 2015, and divorced in 2019. In the judgment of dissolution the trial court imputed $5,000 in monthly income to Jennifer for purposes of calculating John’s child support payments. In 2021, Jennifer requested an order modifying John’s monthly child support payments based on his change in employment and his decreased custody of their daughter. At the hearing on that request, Jennifer testified about her monthly income and expenses. She said that she “ha[d] been on Social Security Disability since January of 2000 and [had] not had a job since.” She suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and a degenerative disc disease, all of which have “gotten worse every year.” Her arthritis has spread, and the inflammation markers in her blood have been high lately. During closing arguments, John argued that Jennifer “should be imputed the $60,000 income.” He pointed out that she did not request that the income not be imputed to her, and there was “no evidence that she [could not] earn that money anymore.” He also argued that there had been “no change of circumstances whatsoever regarding [Jennifer’s] disability since . . . judgment was entered” in 2019.