Mother did delay his order to show cause, and her attorney made some excuse that she was not available, so the hearing was postponed for about a month. Once the matter came to hearing the other attorney refused any efforts to resolve the matter informally, she insisted that my client could be employed and she refused to accept that he was laid off, so we immediately took the matter to hearing. The judge considered my clients job loss, and I had prepared my client for questioning by opposing counsel so that he was prepared to respond to the questioning by wife’s attorney and the court.

The court did consider my client having been terminated, and considered that he was being paid approximately 2,000 a month in unemployment benefits. When at court we discovered that the wife had also lost her part-time employment (she had been earning approximately $1,200 a month) and also learned through my vigorous questioning that she was now cohabitating with a man and based on this the court immediately reduced her spousal support to zero. And the court reduced my client’s child support to approximately $120.00 per month retroactive to the date we had filed.

That’s why it so important to file an order to show cause to reduce support immediately when you are laid off or terminated, because the court can go back to the date of filing when they reduce your support. One interesting thing to note, that to me shows that gender bias is alive and well in our court system, is that my client, the male, was ordered to apply to no less than 10 positions per week, but the court didn’t even think to order his ex wife to seek employment.

It was only after I strenuously argued that wife had a duty to seek employment as well that the court ordered her to apply to at least 5 positions per week (as opposed to husband applying for 10 a week)! Go figure, I guess the system tends to still favor women?

• NOTE
  From time to time I will report as to certain results that I have obtained in a particular case. While your case may have facts that are different than those I discuss, and no particular result in a particular case guarantees that you would obtain the same result in your case, I feel that discussing actual court cases may give you insight as to how the system works.
• In order to protect the anonymity of my clients, I have changed their identities as well as other identifying information, but the basic fact pattern is an accurate representation as to what actually occurred in court.

“When making an order for spousal support, the court may advise the recipient of support that he or she should make reasonable efforts to assist in providing for his or her support needs, taking into account the particular circumstances considered by the court pursuant to [Fam. Code §4320], unless, in the case of a marriage of long duration as provided for in [Fam. Code §4336], the court decides this warning is inadvisable.’” (Fam. Code §4330 (b).)

Spousal support termination date properly set 3 years after original order after lengthy marriage due to changed circumstances. In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 642

The standard rule that modifications in support orders may only be granted if there has been a material change of circumstances since the last order was not designed to circumvent the goal that supported spouses become self-supporting within a reasonable period of timeIn this case the initial spousal support award was premised, in part, on an expectation that Wife would obtain retraining in order to increase her income and become self-supporting. However, by three years later Wife had done little, if anything, to obtain retraining to increase her income, and had not otherwise been diligent in attempting to become self-supporting. W’s “failure to diligently pursue retraining in order to attempt to become self-supporting constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the spousal support order.”

Wife’s failure to use five years since dissolution to become employed was grounds for refusing to increase support after it stepped down to a reservation.  In re Marriage of Sheridan (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 742, 189 Cal.Rptr. 622.  This case was the harbinger  of the change which we are seeing in the attitude of appellate courts towards supported spouses who refuse to act in good faith in seeking employment.

In re Marriage of Terry (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 921, Wife can be forced to change her investment strategy to provide greater income for her to be self-supporting.

In re Marriage of Berland (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1257, 264 Cal.Rptr. 210, Wife’s poor judgment in failing to diligently pursue remunerative employment justified reduced support award for short period followed by reservation.

In re Marriage of McElwee (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 902, 243 Cal.Rptr. 179, Failure of supported spouse to invest prudently own substantial assets may be grounds for termination of spousal support.

In re Marriage of Hoffmeister [Hoffmeister II (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 236 Cal.Rptr. 543, Standard of living of parties during marriage controls, not standard of living of paying spouse at time of modification proceeding].

Webb v. Webb (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 259, 90 Cal.Rptr. 565, card ß{SpSu 026.01}. Court reversed for failure to terminate or decrease alimony when need no longer existed.

In re Marriage of Schaffer [Schaffer II] (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 801, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 797.  No abuse of discretion for judge to consider W’s actions and long term history of spousal support extensions in reducing spousal support to zero at modification hearing.

This is the main code section governing spousal support in California.  Anybody who has to pay spousal support should be study and be familiar with this section.

STATUTE PROVIDES: “In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances:

(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account all of the following:

(1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to acquire other, more marketable skills or employment.

(2) The extent to which the supported party’s present or future earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were incurred during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote time to domestic duties.

(b) The extent to which the supported party contributed to the attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license by the supporting party.

(c) The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support, taking into account the supporting party’s earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living.

(d) The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage.

(e) The obligations and assets, including the separate property, of each party.

(f) The duration of the marriage.

(g) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without unduly interfering with the interests of dependent children in the custody of the party.

(h) The age and health of the parties.

(i) Documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.

(j) The immediate and specific tax consequences to each party.

(k) The balance of the hardships to each party.

(l) The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. Except in the case of a marriage of long duration as described in [Fam. Code §4336], a ‘reasonable period of time’ for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the length of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is intended to limit the court’s discretion to order support for a greater or lesser length of time, based on any of the other factors listed in this section, Section 4336, and the circumstances of the parties.

(m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with [Fam. Code §4325.

(n) Any other factors the court determines are just and equitable." (Fam. Code §4320.)

IMPORTANT AND RECENT CASES DEALING WITH SPOUSAL SUPPORT REDUCTION & TERMINATION

 In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705, 250 Cal.Rptr. 148, provision is as follows: "When making an order for spousal support, the court may advise the recipient of support that he or she should make reasonable efforts to assist in providing for his or her support needs, taking into account the particular circumstances considered by the court pursuant to [Fam. Code §4320], unless, in the case of a marriage of long duration as provided for in [Fam. Code §4336], the court decides this warning is inadvisable.’” (Fam. Code §4330 (b).)

Spousal support termination date properly set 3 years after original order after lengthy marriage due to changed circumstances.  .  In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 642

The standard rule that modifications in support orders may only be granted if there has been a material change of circumstances since the last order was not designed to circumvent the goal that supported spouses become self-supporting within a reasonable period of timeIn this case the initial spousal support award was premised, in part, on an expectation that Wife would obtain retraining in order to increase her income and become self-supporting. However, by three years later Wife had done little, if anything, to obtain retraining to increase her income, and had not otherwise been diligent in attempting to become self-supporting. W’s “failure to diligently pursue retraining in order to attempt to become self-supporting constituted a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the spousal support order.”

Wife’s failure to use five years since dissolution to become employed was grounds for refusing to increase support after it stepped down to a reservation.  In re Marriage of Sheridan (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 742, 189 Cal.Rptr. 622.  This case was the harbinger  of the change which we are seeing in the attitude of appellate courts towards supported spouses who refuse to act in good faith in seeking employment.

     In re Marriage of Terry (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 921, Wife can be forced to change her investment strategy to provide greater income for her to be self-supporting.

     In re Marriage of Berland (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1257, 264 Cal.Rptr. 210, Wife’s poor judgment in failing to diligently pursue remunerative employment justified reduced support award for short period followed by reservation.

     In re Marriage of McElwee (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 902, 243 Cal.Rptr. 179, Failure of supported spouse to invest prudently own substantial assets may be grounds for termination of spousal support.

     In re Marriage of Hoffmeister [Hoffmeister II (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 236 Cal.Rptr. 543, Standard of living of parties during marriage controls, not standard of living of paying spouse at time of modification proceeding].

     Webb v. Webb (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 259, 90 Cal.Rptr. 565, card ß{SpSu 026.01}. Court reversed for failure to terminate or decrease alimony when need no longer existed.

In re Marriage of Schaffer [Schaffer II] (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 801, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 797.  No abuse of discretion for judge to consider W’s actions and long term history of spousal support extensions in reducing spousal support to zero at modification hearing.

Your child support order does not automatically end when your source of income ends. If you are not paying, arrears (owed payments) will continue to add up until the court changes the order.

You must go to court as soon as possible to file a petition explaining the change in your circumstances and asking for a modification of the order. 

Can I reach an informal agreement with the other parent to pay less support while I am unemployed? 

The simple answer to this question is NO!  While the other parent may agree to accept less, this agreement is not legally binding and will not be upheld in court.  The other parent, or the Department of Child Support can pursue you for unpaid support at any time in the future, even years into the future when your child is an adult. DO NOT TRY TO REACH AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT TO CHANGE CHILD SUPPORT!  Make sure you have a competent attorney go to court and get a court order reducing your support. 

Can I have the order of support stopped completely?

It is very hard to convince the court to reduce child support to zero, but you will get a significant reduction and possibly no support, along with a stern warning that you should seek new employment.  You may be required to apply to a certain number of positions per month, to register with the Employee Development Department, and to provide written proof to the court of your efforts to seek new employment.

What if I get a new job that pays way less, will my support be adjusted? 

Unless the other parent can prove that you could obtain a higher paying position, which is very difficult to do, the court must consider your current income, even if it is drastically lower than what you have earned in the past.  If you can’t find employment at the same level as your prior position the Court will use your current income.  

Can you assist me with Back Due Support and child support arrears?

YES!  In many cases we have been able to help clients negotiate payments of pennies on the dollar on back-due support and arrears.  If you do nothing these arrears build up fast, the court assesses10 percent interest on arrears per year, and there is no way to discharge past-due support in bankruptcy, these arrears continue to build up.  In many cases we can help you settle past due support for a much smaller amount than what is owed.

Why is Dishon & Block the right firm to hire to help me with my child support and spousal support issues?

Our Firm Has Expertise in this Area. We will show you the totally legal techniques to lower your child support payment that your ex doesn’t want you to know about. Are you tired of being portrayed as a deadbeat just because you want to make sure your support is actually being spent on your child.

Protect your rights and stop paying unreasonable child support 

Get answers now on how to lower your child support with our system. Don’t let your friends and family tell that your situation is hopeless, and that your ex has the upper hand.

You still have a chance to improve your situation and we will take the steps needed to reduce your support. 

Contact Dishon & Block at 949-231-1305 immediately for a consultation about your case.

They feel hopeless, and often have been told by several prior attorneys there is nothing they can do about it.

I Beg to Differ

I have helped countless men in this situation reduce and even fully terminate their spousal support obligations.  I have helped them get their former spouses back to work, or at the very least reduced their support obligation due to their ex-spouse’s lack of efforts to seek employment and become self-sufficient.

• Was your spouse given a “Gavron” warning at the time of trial, a warning that she should become self-sufficient within a reasonable period of time, and that failure to make such efforts is a basis for the court to reduce or terminate support.
• Did your spouse undergo a “vocational assessment” that assessed her ability to earn and was this information presented to the judge?

These are some of the many important strategies to pursue in asking the court to reduce her support obligation.

Don’t worry if you are earning more than you were when you completed your divorce, under a decision called “Hoffmeister II” the court can not consider your increased earnings as spousal support is limited to your marital standard of living.

Now is the time to take action!

It’s really never too early to take action to reduce spousal support.  Recent decisions support the proposition that the supporting spouse should take early action to insure that their ex-spouse goes back to work and becomes self-supporting as soon as possible.

Now Is the Time To Fight Spousal Support

There are many techniques that I have developed to reduce and or obviate the payment of long term alimony!  Do the math—if you are ordered to pay $1,500 per month that amounts to $360,000 over a 20 year period!!  Spousal support will certainly be one of the largest financial issues in your case!  If you can even reduce the amount by $500 now and do nothing else this would amount to $120,000 over the same twenty years.   However, there are many strategies that I have developed that will likely not only reduce your current obligation, but also ensure that alimony is terminated much sooner, likely resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.