Marriage of Cunningham CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Authority to reduce imputed income John first contends the trial court lacked authority to reduce the amount of income imputed to Jennifer when it modified the child support order. John is wrong. A request to modify a child support order, like the one filed by Jennifer, “put[s] modification in general [at] issue[,] and authorizes the court ‘to either increase or decrease the payments to meet the equities of the situation.’” (In re Marriage of O’Connell (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 565, 575.) The court does this by “consider[ing] the complete picture of both parents’ incomes and expenses[,] as well as the relative times of custody.” (Ibid.) It may also consider a parent’s earning capacity if doing so is “consistent with the best interests of the children, . . . the overall welfare and developmental needs of the children, and the time that parent spends with the children.” (Fam. Code, § 4058, subd. (b).) That is what the trial court did here. Notice of reduced imputed income John next contends his due process rights were violated because he “was not given any prior notice that the trial court might, on its own motion, make a finding [Jennifer] is unemployable and [that] the…