Santa Cruz County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Mendez CA6

Filed 10/6/22 Santa Cruz County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Mendez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY H049394 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT (Santa Cruz County SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. FL039316)

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

BOLIVAR Y. MENDEZ,

Defendant and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Santa Cruz County Department of Child Support Services (Department) appeals an order setting the child support obligation of respondent Bolivar Mendez (Mendez). The Department contends that the trial court erred in setting support below the amount required by child support guidelines. Mendez has not appeared in the appeal and has not filed a respondent’s brief.2 We conclude that the court abused its discretion when it deviated from the guideline support amount without providing the required reasoning. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.) 2 Because Mendez failed to file a brief after receiving notice of default, resolution of this appeal is based solely on the record, the opening brief, and oral argument by the Department. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a).)

Mendez is the father of two children for whom he currently pays child support. In 2015, Mendez and the children’s mother entered into a stipulated judgment regarding parental obligations which set his monthly child support obligation at $527. In 2021, the Department filed a request to modify Mendez’s child support obligation, asserting that the prior child support order was last modified three years earlier and that Mendez’s current income had increased. At a hearing, the court found that, according to the child support calculator, Mendez’s monthly child support obligation would be $917 but concluded that this amount would be unaffordable. Although the Department argued that Mendez previously demonstrated an ability to pay $527 monthly, and that his income had increased since the time that amount was ordered, the court reduced Mendez’s child support obligation to $300 per month with an additional $200 monthly payment to reduce child support arrears. The Department timely appealed. On appeal, the Department asserts that the court erred in reducing child support from $917 to $300 monthly, because the order is not supported by substantial evidence, and because the court failed to make sufficient findings that the reduction was in the children’s best interest. We review child support awards for abuse of discretion. (Y.R. v. A.F. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 974, 982 (Y.R.).) In conducting this review, we “determine whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion—that is, whether any judge reasonably could have made such an order.” (In re Marriage of Morton (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1039.) The only discretion provided to a trial court with respect to child support awards is that set forth by statute or rule. (Stanislaus County v. Gibbs (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1425.)