DISCUSSION

Father contends he has been disabled and unable to become employed since 2010.

He contends the court erred by not modifying his child support obligations back to when

his disability allegedly began in 2010. The law allows retroactive application of an order

modifying or revoking child support, but only to the date of filing a notice of motion or

order to show cause on the proposed modification. (Fam. Code, § 3653, subds. (a), (b);

In re Marriage of Everett (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 [citing former Civ. Code

§ 4700, subd. (a), which was continued by Fam. Code, § 3653 without substantive

change]; see In re Marriage of Cryer (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1051-1052.)

The appealed order is dated April 15, 2014, and concerned Father's motion to

modify his child support obligations filed in late July 2013. The court's order to modify

Father's support obligations was made retroactive to August 1, 2013, which is as far back

as the law permitted. Father apparently ignores or misunderstands the procedural history

3 Father requests we take judicial notice of the fact that he is disabled, based on a July 2015 social security administration award letter. His request for judicial notice is denied. The document was not before the trial court, and whether Father is actually disabled is not a proper matter for judicial notice and not relevant to the issues on appeal. 3 of his case. Although he had previously sought to set aside the 2011 Order, those

motions were either (1) terminated as a result of Father's nonappearance or (2) denied on

the merits. He did not timely appeal any orders from those prior proceedings. In April

2014 the court had no basis to "undo" the prior proceedings, and it correctly decided the

issues pending at the time. Father has not demonstrated any reversible error.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Mother is entitled to costs on appeal.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

4