Paulin

Paulin v. Paulin

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 616·46 Cal. App. 4th 1378·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 314·96 Daily Journal DAR 7845·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4918
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1996No. A071772California2,135 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

King, J.

In this case we hold that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that a child support payor was entitled to a statutory hardship deduction due to justifiable expenses resulting from the birth of twins to *1381 himself and his present wife which caused extreme financial hardship. We also hold, where the former wife had remarried and had voluntarily ceased her employment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by fixing her income, for purposes of the statutory child support formula, based upon her earning capacity.

Robyn Paulin appeals from a superior court order reducing the child support paid by her former husband, Frederick Scott Paulin, for their two minor children. 1 On appeal, her contentions are twofold: (1) that the court erred by granting Scott a hardship deduction; and (2) that the court erred in attributing income to her when she was no longer working. We affirm.

Facts

Robyn and Scott’s 13-year marriage was dissolved by order of the Solano County Superior Court effective October 18, 1991. There were two minor children of the marriage, Scott and Tiffany. By stipulated order dated November 4, 1994, Scott was ordered to provide $1,511 per…

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.