County of San Diego v. D.L. CA4/1

Filed 3/20/24 County of San Diego v. D.L. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, D081738

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. DF215239)

D.L.

Appellant;

S.H.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Deborah A. Cumba, Commissioner. Affirmed. D.L., in pro. per., for Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Darin L. Wessell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent, County of San Diego. Lehr Law and Jessica E. Lehr for Respondent, S.H.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Relying on his inability to find work and zero percent custody timeshare, D.L. (Father) filed a request for order (RFO) seeking to modify his child support obligations regarding his daughter, A.L. The trial court denied the RFO, finding no change in circumstances and leaving in place the

existing child support order imputing a full-time minimum wage.2 Father challenges that ruling on various grounds, all of which we reject. First, Father asserts that by imputing income to him, the trial court failed to implement the statewide uniform guideline for child support in

Family Code section 4050 et seq.3 This claim lacks merit because “[i]n determining a parent’s income for purposes of calculating guideline child support,” section 4058, subdivision (b) authorizes a trial court to “impute to that parent an income different from his or her actual income—i.e., an income amount that corresponds with that parent’s earning capacity.” (In re Marriage of Sorge (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626, 642–643.) Second, Father contends the trial court did not apply the proper burdens of proof and production because he offered evidence of his lack of income, while the County of San Diego (County) and A.L.’s mother, S.H. (Mother), did not produce any evidence to support the existing amount of child support. However, the County and Mother were not required to produce any evidence because Father, as the party seeking to reduce child support,