Him H. v. F.D. CA4/2

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Kim H., appeals from a postjudgment order of the family court denying

her February 2, 2012, motion to modify a “below-guideline” child support order filed on

November 4, 2011, and entered into on September 2, 2011, pursuant to Kim’s stipulation

with respondent, F.D. Pursuant to the existing order, F.D. agreed to pay Kim $5,000 per

month for the support of their son, J.

Kim first claims that the family court erred as a matter of law in refusing to issue a

statement of decision on its order denying her motion to increase F.D.’s $5,000 monthly

child support obligation. (Fam. Code, § 3654.)1 We reject this claim because no

statement of decision was required, as a matter of law.

Kim further claims the family court abused its discretion in three respects: (1) in

refusing to increase the below-guideline support order based on F.D.’s “chronic failure to

pay” or past arrearage, which was satisfied in full shortly after the motion was filed; (2)

in refusing to order F.D. to make a “child support security deposit” of up to one year’s

child support payments, or $60,000 (§§ 4560-4561); and (3) in refusing to award her

attorney fees based on both needs…