DISCUSSION

It does not appear from the appellate record that a judgment has been issued in this case. Therefore, the support order from which mother appeals is a temporary support order, which is appealable. (In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368; In re Marriage of Gruen (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 627, 637.) Child support awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Lim & Carrasco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 768, 774.) Mother first challenges the trial court’s order that father pay $0 to mother in child support because father has full custody of the minor child.

1 Father’s RFO stated that he had been awarded sole legal custody of

the minor. All other documents in the appellate record state that father was awarded sole custody, without specification between legal and physical custody. Mother’s briefing on appeal does not indicate the parents currently share custody of the minor. We presume the RFO was incorrect, and that father was granted sole physical and legal custody after the DVRO was issued against mother.

3 Mother claims this order “undermines California’s policy that children share in both parents’ resources.” (Capitalization omitted.) We disagree. If the minor child is living with father and father has 100 percent custody and timeshare, then the child is benefitting from father’s higher means. Mother fails to provide any support for her argument that ordering father to pay child support to mother, with whom the child is not residing, would somehow benefit the minor child or better enable the parents to maintain the child’s living standards. In the situation where one parent has full custody or 100 percent timeshare, that parent will not be responsible for paying child support. The statutory scheme “presume[s] that a parent having primary physical responsibility for the children contributes a significant portion of available resources for the support of the children.” (Fam. Code, § 4053, subd. (i).) Mother did not offer any admissible evidence that father’s timeshare should be calculated at anything other than 100 percent. (See DaSilva v. DaSilva (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034.) In using the guideline formula (Fam. Code, § 4055), only the noncustodial parent may be ordered to pay child support to the full custodial parent; the formula does not permit the reverse. Therefore, under the current custodial situation, mother benefits from the $0 child support order, as she has not been ordered to pay any support to father. Of course, if the custody situation changes, the child support order may also be modified. Mother also seeks retroactive support for the period in which father has been paying her $0 in support. As explained ante, the trial court’s order granting $0 child support was correct. Therefore, there are no grounds for ordering father to pay mother retroactively during that period.

4

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Intervener and Respondent California Department of Child Support Services shall recover its costs on appeal.

BANCROFT, J.*

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.

*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

5