In Re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146·116 Cal. App. 4th 201
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2004A100718California3,698 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Jack Grooms appeals after the trial court ordered his child support obligation modified. Grooms, who resides in California, contends the trial court erred in using California law to modify an Idaho child support order because federal and state law and the choice of law provision in the parties’ marital settlement agreement require that Idaho law be applied in modifying the support order, even though the parties no longer live in Idaho. In the alternative, Grooms contends the court should have deviated from the California child support guidelines and used Oregon law in determining the proper amount of support because that is where the minor children and their mother, Susan Crosby, reside. Because we conclude (1) the relevant statutory scheme and public policy require that California law be used in modifying the Idaho child support order, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to use Oregon law to determine Grooms’s child support obligation, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Crosby and Grooms obtained a divorce decree in Idaho on May 15, 1996. They had been residents of Idaho for more than three years at that time and had six…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.