Many people that have a case which involves children are at least casually familiar with child support. The concept of child support is fairly simple – both parents have an obligation to contribute to the support of their children to the best of their ability. But as is the case in most facets of human life, there are various factors and issues that complicate matters and a simple answer or solution is not always a reality.
The California Family Code provides additional forms of child support beyond the regular monthly payments, known as child support add-on’s. Family Code Section 4062 provides that in addition to regular child support payments, the Court shall also order the payment of childcare costs related to employment or to reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills, and the reasonable uninsured health care costs for the children. These two forms of add-on’s are mandatory and must be ordered upon request by either party. The Court also, if it finds appropriate, order payments for costs related to the educational or other special needs of the children and travel expenses for visitation. These two forms of add-on’s are discretionary and is left to the judgment of the Court if it is appropriate to make such orders.
For purposes of this post the focus will be on costs related to childcare, as this is the issue most frequently litigated of those provided for in Family Code 4062.
Most commonly childcare expenses are only ordered reimbursed when a parent is required to use it so that he/she can go to work or training necessary for he/she to find work. In the recent case of Greiner v. Keller (June 14, 2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 332, the Appellate Court analyzed whether childcare costs should be reimbursable to a Mother who is currently employed with marketable skills but seeks to improve those skills through education in order to become self-supporting and not need public assistance.
What makes the Greiner case unique is that the Mother was already working and needed childcare, not for her current job or training related to that job, but for her to seek training and education for a new job. Mother argued that she wanted to go to school to become a paralegal and in doing so would help improve her earning abilities and become self-supporting. Father argued that Mother’s current employer was not requiring her to pursue additional training and it was her personal choice to do so. The Trial Court held Family Code 4062 does not allow an award of childcare costs incurred while a parent pursues education to expand existing employment skills if a parent’s currently marketable skills were sufficient to secure employment or were capable of being used to secure employment even if being underutilized.
On appeal, the Trial Court’s orders were overturned and reversed. The Appellate Court held that the language of Family Code 4062 in no way restricts “employment” or “employment skills” to current employment, as well as the Legislature’s general principles governing child support awards.
The lesson learned from this case is that Court’s will lean towards ordering that childcare costs be shared by the parents so long as they are related to employment, regardless if for a current job or a prospective job.
Another wrinkle, not at issue in the Greiner case, is the allocation of the amount of childcare each parent is responsible. The starting point is generally going to be a 50/50 split of these costs. However, Family Code Section 4061 allows the Court to allocate the percentage is parent is responsible in proportion to their net disposable incomes.
These issues can be very confusing and experienced counsel can reduce the level of difficulty. Call Warren | Clemens | Morris to speak with one of our experts.
