Hutchinson v. Ajiduah CA2/6

Filed 4/2/13 Hutchinson v. Ajiduah CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KARYN HUTCHINSON, 2d Civil No. B236024 (Super. Ct. No. D273463) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

PAUL AJIDUAH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Paul Ajiduah has not seen his child for six years; he seeks custody. Ajiduah asks that California maintain jurisdiction over the case; both the child and the custodial parent, respondent Karyn Hutchinson, live in Texas. The trial court has ordered Ajiduah to pay child support; his arrearages exceed $80,000. Ajiduah owes Hutchinson's counsel over $17,000 in court-ordered fees; he has paid nothing.1 Notwithstanding his obdurate behavior, Ajiduah sought and received a reduction in his monthly child support payment -- a seemingly inconsequential matter since he does not comply with support orders irrespective of the amount. Ajiduah appeals from the trial court's order relinquishing jurisdiction to Texas on child custody issues and requiring him to pay Hutchinson's attorney's fees. We affirm.

1 Hutchinson's attorney withdrew from this appeal for non-payment of fees. Hutchinson did not appear or file a respondent's brief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Hutchinson has sole custody of the parties' minor child. In 2005, the trial court entered an order requiring Ajiduah to pay monthly child support of $1,548, based on self-employment income of $99,000 per year. At that time, Ajiduah owed $24,551.44 in back child support. In 2006, Hutchinson and the child relocated to Texas. Ajiduah has had no contact with the child since they moved. By March 2011, Ajiduah was approximately $80,000 behind in child support payments. He filed an order to show cause (OSC) to modify child custody, visitation and child support based on a change in circumstances. Ajiduah claimed he was starting a new job with a monthly income of $4,506. Hutchinson and the Ventura County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) responded to the OSC, but those documents are not included in the record on appeal. The record also does not include any of the earlier child custody, support and attorney's fees orders. At the evidentiary hearing, the DCSS attorney advised the trial court that monthly guideline support is $710 based on Ajiduah's current actual income. Hutchinson declared she has no income, and the trial court refused to impute any income to her, stating it would be inappropriate "in light of the history of the case." Agreeing that child support should be based on Ajiduah's actual income, the trial court modified Ajiduah's monthly support obligation to $710. The trial court also ordered him to pay Hutchinson's attorney's fees in the amount of $7,000. On the custody and visitation issues, the trial court relinquished jurisdiction to Texas based on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). (Fam. Code, § 3422.)2 The court observed that Texas has been the child's home state since 2006, that neither the child nor the custodial parent has any connection to California and that Ajiduah "has failed to follow the 2004 custody order and has not provided financial assistance for the minor child." The court ruled that the prior child