Opinion
B329559
05-09-2024
L.B., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.T., Appellant.
S.T., in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 19STPT03689, Frank W. Chen, Commissioner. Reversed and remanded.
S.T., in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
COLLINS, J.
Father S.T., appeals in propria persona from the trial court's order modifying the child support paid by mother, L.B. Father argues that the court erred in basing the calculation of mother's income only on mother's self-reported numbers, instead of considering crucial evidence of additional sources of income. Father also contends that the court failed to set forth the bases for its decision. Mother has not filed a respondent's brief on appeal. We agree with father that the court abused its discretion and therefore reverse the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Initial Petition and Stipulated Judgment
Father and mother have one child in common, S., born in 2015. They never married, and operated under a "co-parenting agreement" from S.'s birth until December 2019. At that time, mother requested to modify the custody schedule. After father refused, mother made multiple reports of child abuse against father, all of which were closed as unsubstantiated. Mother initiated this action in December 2019, filing a petition to establish parental relationship, along with a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) again alleging child abuse.
Mother filed several more unsuccessful TRO requests through early 2020. In mid-2020, father filed a request for a TRO against mother, as well as a request for order seeking child support and attorney fees. In November 2020, the parties entered into a stipulated two-year restraining order providing for monitored visitation for mother and barring her from making any false claims regarding abuse.
In April 2021, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment regarding child custody and support before retired Judge Reva Goetz. Both mother and father were represented by counsel at the time. Under the judgment, father received sole legal and physical custody of S., while mother continued to receive monitored visitation three times per week. The parties also agreed that mother would pay father $1,795 per month in child support. This amount was calculated based on mother's reported gross monthly self-employment income of $14,770, which, as stated in the judgment, was based on gross receipts to mother's bank account from January 1 to October 13, 2020.
According to the record, Judge Goetz presided over this case as both a privately retained mediator and as a judge pro tem for the superior court.
According to the income and expense declarations filed by the parties, mother had been self-employed since 2005 providing "alternative health care services." She holds a Ph.D. and has vocational training as an "Advanced Certified Body Talk Practitioner and Instructor." Father is employed part-time as a dance instructor at several dance studios; he also earns income from performances, and royalty payments from past work.
In May 2021, Judge Goetz issued an order regarding father's request for over $300,000 in attorney fees. The court found that father had incurred attorney fees due to mother's abuse allegations and her failure to fully comply with discovery into her financial condition. The court further found that mother earned income of approximately $12,270 per month, plus $1,400 in rental income. The court noted that mother claimed her income had decreased due to the pandemic and the birth of her second child. The court found mother's claim of diminished income not credible, citing a recent social media posting shortly before mother gave birth stating that she was continuing to provide her healthcare services. The court also detailed discrepancies in two income and expense declarations filed by mother in October 2020 and January 2021, and found that these disparities could not be reconciled with "other information from sources independent of [mother's] representations such as her tax return and billing statements from her attorney." Thus, the court concluded that mother's income and expense declarations "are unreliable, and the court cannot rely on them as accurate information upon which to determine [mother's] financial position." The court further stated that mother's "financial resources are difficult to ascertain," and that based on the evidence provided, the "only explanation is that [mother] has an additional source(s) of income or support that she has not reported." The court concluded that mother was able to contribute to father's attorney fees and ordered mother to pay $150,000 to father.
II. Mother's Requests to Modify Support
In June 2021, mother filed a request to modify the child support order, which Judge Goetz denied in September 2021. Mother filed a second request in October 2021, which the court, Judge Lawrence Riff presiding, denied as an improper request for reconsideration.
As of June 2021, mother was acting in propria persona.
In October 2021, the court declared mother a vexatious litigant and subject to a prefiling order. In March 2022, a third request for modification was filed on mother's behalf by the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department (CSSD). However, when the CSSD learned of mother's status as a vexatious litigant, it withdrew the motion.
A division of the Health and Human Services Agency, the CSSD operates to "administer all services and perform all functions necessary to establish, collect, and distribute child support." (Fam. Code §17200.) All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mother submitted a pre-filing request to the court in April 2022, seeking permission to file her request to modify child support and visitation orders. In a May 10, 2022 minute order, Judge David Cowan found mother had made a threshold showing of merit to allow her to file her request seeking additional visitation with S. and possible lifting of the visitation monitor requirement and travel restriction. However, the court denied mother's request to seek modification of child support, noting that the proposed request was duplicative of the request denied in 2021. The court found that mother's argument that her income was reduced due to the birth of her second child had been "considered and rejected" by the court in October 2021, as mother "was unable to provide any credible evidence of reduced income, failed to collect child support from the father of her infant son, and had already given birth to her son . . . by the time she stipulated to her child support obligations" in April 2021. The court further found that mother "has not provided any new evidence of reduced income and does not address any of [the prior order's] findings. Nor does [mother] identify any new facts not previously presented." The court therefore found mother had not shown a material change of circumstances.
Now represented by counsel, in October 2022 mother filed a new request for order modifying child support. In her supporting declaration, she requested an adjustment of her child support payments to the guideline, stating that the prior child support order was "based on my 2019 income, prior to two significant changes in circumstance: a global pandemic and the birth of my second child." However, she claimed that since 2020, the "extent of services and the way that I provide these services has changed dramatically." Thus, according to mother, she could no longer afford the current child support payment of $1,795 per month.
Mother also requested, and was ultimately granted, a change from covering 75 percent of unreimbursed medical expenses to an even 50/50 split with father. That change is not at issue in this appeal.
Mother reported that her Schedule C form filed with her 2021 taxes showed a gross income of $49,921 for the year, or an average of $4,160 per month. Mother also stated that her total income from January through September 2022 based on Venmo, PayPal, Stripe, and Amazon receipts was $71,015, or an average of $7,725 per month. She offered to make these statements available at the hearing for review by the court.
Mother also requested a hardship deduction, stating that she was the sole caretaker for her second child, C., then 21 months old. According to mother, C.'s father lived in Florida and paid for childcare when mother worked, but otherwise she was "solely financially and physically responsible for the care of this child," which "has impacted my ability to earn money tremendously." Mother also stated that since 2020, she had paid between $3,250 and $3,500 per month in professionally supervised visits for S.
Regarding assets, mother disclosed that she jointly owned two properties in Los Angeles with her mother, who paid the mortgages. Mother denied that she received any income from either property. She was also the owner of another property, which was purchased with funds from a government loan, and was "currently losing money." Mother also stated that she started two limited liability companies earlier in 2022, which were currently operating at a loss.
Mother also filed an income and expense declaration, reporting that she was self-employed and her monthly income varied. In addition to her Ph.D., mother had also obtained a real estate license. She estimated father's gross monthly income as $10,000 from teaching, rental income, performances, and gifts. She reported that her self-employment income after business expenses averaged $4,160 per month, but she made $8,244 in the last month. She reported assets of less than $1,000 in cash and $235,000 in property. Mother estimated her monthly expenses to be $6,880, which included over $3,200 in visitation monitor fees. She also requested a hardship deduction of $585 for expenses for her other child. In addition, mother requested to remove the visitation monitors and gradually increase visitation, until the parents had an alternating custody schedule.
The visitation and custody orders are not at issue in this appeal.
Father, in propria persona, filed his income and expense declaration in November 2022. He reported a monthly gross income of $1,360. He estimated mother's monthly gross income as $14,779, based on the April 2021 stipulated judgment. Father also reported that he had bank accounts and other liquid assets of approximately $54,000 and other property worth about $488,000.
Father also filed a responsive declaration in opposition to mother's request for order. He argued that because the circumstances mother cited occurred prior to the parties' April 2021 stipulated judgment, mother had not shown any changed circumstances justifying her request for modification of child support. He also argued that mother had not filed a complete income and expense declaration and that she was barred from relief by the disentitlement doctrine because she had failed to pay him $150,000 in attorney fees as ordered by the court in May 2021.
Father disputed mother's contention that the stipulated judgment was based on mother's 2019 income; instead, father argued that mother's income was calculated for the stipulated judgment using her receipts for the first ten months of 2020. Father also argued that mother's income had in fact increased since April 2021. He cited the prior court's findings that mother's financial information was unreliable and inconsistent, and pointed out inconsistencies in mother's reported income in her income and expense declarations.
Mother filed a reply declaration in November 2022. She claimed that the prior court's order had made "extreme, wildly inaccurate determinations about my financial situation." She also claimed that her prior inaccurate income and expense declarations were "solely due to incompetent counsel" and that she did not understand them at the time. She stated that her current average monthly income before expenses was $7,725.
III. First Hearing
Both parties appeared with counsel at the hearing on December 6, 2022 before Commissioner Frank Chen. CSSD submitted the guideline recommendation of $1,177 per month, calculated based on an average monthly income for mother of $7,800 in self-employment income. The guideline support calculations also included a hardship deduction of $588. At the hearing, mother stated that she agreed with the guideline amount. Father argued there had been no material change in circumstances. The court responded that the prior judgment did not give a hardship deduction for mother's second child and that if mother demonstrated that her income had substantially changed from the prior amount of $14,799, then "there would a basis for the court to modify the child support order."
Father also argued that mother's information regarding her income was unreliable, noting that in October 2022, mother reported a new small business loan of $300,000, meaning she assumed a new monthly payment of $1,600 to increase her real estate holdings. Father also argued that mother's Schedule C forms had not been accurate in the past.
The court noted that mother's prior requests for modification were done while mother was representing herself and stated that it was not inclined to use inconsistencies in mother's past income and expense declarations as an indication that mother was not truthful in her financial disclosures. The court further found that "when someone is self-employed, that the process to determine what the actual monthly gross income is much more difficult.... So the court is finding that there has been a material change in circumstances since the judgment from April of 2021 toward a modification of child support." The court adopted the guideline calculations as the basis for a temporary order of support of $1,177 per month. The court set the matter for a continued hearing on March 20 to allow father to conduct further financial discovery. The court further ordered the parties to submit an updated income and expense declaration three weeks prior to the hearing.
IV. Supplemental filings and second hearing
Father filed an updated income and expense declaration on February 27, 2023. He reported working about 14 hours per week, earning $1,488 gross per month. He also reported that he had to withdraw $10,000 from his IRA to pay his attorney fees. He disclosed assets of about $11,000 in cash, $23,000 in his IRA, and $492,749 in real and personal property.
Father filed a supplemental responsive declaration on March 8, 2023. He continued to object to mother's requested downward modification and instead sought an upward modification of child support. He argued that subsequent discovery into mother's finances revealed her monthly documented income was over $19,000. Specifically, he contended that mother's gross receipts from payment platforms (Venmo, Paypal, and Stripe) in 2022 totaled $161,488, over $90,000 more than disclosed by mother, that since May 2022, mother had acquired eight real properties out of state and received at least $10,000 in rental income from those properties. Father attached as exhibits documents he had subpoenaed, including modified Excel spreadsheets that he stated showed the receipts from the payment platforms. Father also argued that mother's mortgage payments for her residence had been paid by her mother since August 2021, and that this benefit to mother should be imputed to her as income.
Mother filed her updated income and expense declaration on March 14, 2023. She reported her self-employment gross income as $8,038 average per month, but that she had received $9,975 in the last month. She again noted that her income was reduced over the past year because she was the full-time caregiver to her second child, and also noted that she was 23 weeks pregnant with her third child. Mother reported assets of about $1,000 in cash and other liquid assets, plus $175,000 in real property. She estimated her average monthly expenses at $7,550. Mother included her Schedule C for 2022, reporting gross income for the year of $90,041.
In her supplemental reply declaration, mother claimed that father had "materially misrepresented the facts, doubling my income for 2022 and egregiously misleading the Court." She explained that father's spreadsheets from the payment platforms overstated her income by including amounts that mother paid rather than received. She attached, as an example, a copy of her April 2022 PayPal statement. Mother also attached two 1099 forms for 2022 showing receipt of rental income of $21,596, paid to Terminal St. Holdings, one of her limited liability companies. She stated in her declaration that the expenses for that LLC for 2022 were over $225,000.
CSSD submitted guideline calculations to the court on March 20, 2023. The report listed a gross monthly income of $9,975 for mother and $2,449 for father. It also included a $571 hardship deduction for mother. This calculation resulted in a support payment by mother of $1,143 per month.
Both parties appeared with counsel at the continued hearing on March 20, 2023. Counsel for CSSD reported that mother's custodial timeshare increased to 28 percent as of March and then would increase to 35 percent as of April 2023. Mother's counsel stated that mother would accept the proposed guideline calculation based on her income of $9,975 per month, although she contended her average was lower and that she would soon be on maternity leave. She also requested that father's income be imputed as fulltime minimum wage, or about $2,660 per month, as "we don't have concrete evidence of what his income is."
Father cited to several loan applications by mother that "consistently represented a higher income" than the income mother stated in her income and expense declarations, including one application reporting a selfemployment income of $50,000 per month and several others reporting income of $15,000 per month. Father's counsel also noted that mother had acquired additional real property through an LLC that she co-owned.
Mother's counsel responded that the loan application stating $50,000 per month income was an error and should have been the annual amount. She also stated that the income on the other applications was based on mother's 2019 income, and that mother was willing to testify to these facts. She argued that mother had produced her tax returns for the past three years, and "none of them account for $15,000 a month," or more.
The court found a material change in circumstances and therefore granted mother's request to modify child support. The court ordered the prior temporary support amount as the permanent order for November 2022 through February 28, 2023. Starting March 1, 2023, the court "finds it in the best interest of the minor child to impute minimum wage full-time income" for father, and therefore adopted the guideline calculation of $1,143 from that date, then adjusted to $1,026 as the guideline based on a 35 percent timeshare for mother from April 1, 2023 forward.
The court filed the order after hearing on April 11, 2023. Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standards
Child support awards in California are governed by a statewide uniform child support guideline with the priority of protecting the best interests of children. (§ 4053, subd. (e); In re Marriage of Macilwaine (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 514, 528 (Macilwaine); In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 283 (Cheriton).) "The court shall adhere to the statewide uniform guideline and may depart from the guideline only in the special circumstances" identified in the statute. (§ 4052.) The guideline amount is determined by a mathematical formula based on each parent's net monthly disposable income. (§ 4055; see also Macilwaine, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 528.) "The amount generated by the formula 'is intended to be presumptively correct in all cases, and only under special circumstances should child support orders fall below the child support mandated by the guideline formula.' (§ 4053, subd. (k); see § 4057, subd. (a).) The presumption 'affect[s] the burden of proof' and may be rebutted with evidence" that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case. (In re Marriage of Hein (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 519, 527 (Hein); see also § 4057, subd. (b).)
In awarding support, courts are required to adhere to statutory principles: "'"A parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life."' (§ 4053, subd. (a).) "Each parent should pay for the support of the children according to his or her ability." (§ 4053, subd. (d).) "Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children." (§ 4053, subd. (f).)'" (Macilwaine, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 528.)
Subject to certain exceptions, child support orders are modifiable "at any time as the court deems necessary." (§ 3651, subds. (a), (e); Marriage of Bodo (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 373, 386.) The party seeking to modify a child support order must show there has been a material change in circumstances since entry of the last support order. (Hein, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 528, citing In re Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1303.) "In determining whether a material change has occurred, the first step often involves applying the statewide uniform guideline to the parent's current financial circumstances. (See In re Marriage of Laudeman (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1013, 1015 [overriding issue is whether a change has affected either party's financial status].) Thus, an increase or decrease in either parent's income available for child support will affect the guideline amount of child support and, thus, may constitute a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of child support." (Hein, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 528-529, citing In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546, 556.)
We review a trial court's determination to grant or deny a request for modification of a child support order for an abuse of discretion. (Macilwaine, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 527; Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at pp. 282283.) Under this standard, we consider only "'whether the court's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.'" (Macilwaine, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 527, quoting In re Marriage of De Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1360.) "We do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, but confine ourselves to determining whether any judge could have reasonably made the challenged order." (Ibid.) The trial court's discretion must be exercised within the limits of the child support statutes, but we uphold "the exercise of discretion as broadly as possible under the statute." (In re Marriage of Fini (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1043-1044.)
"To the extent [appellant] challenges the trial court's factual findings, our review follows established principles concerning the existence of substantial evidence in support of the findings. On review for substantial evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference." (In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 28, 34, quoting In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 11501151.) "We do not reweigh the evidence or reconsider credibility determinations." (In re Marriage of Dandona & Araluce (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.)
II. Analysis
A. Income
Father contends that the trial court erred in calculating mother's income for child support purposes based only on her self-employment income as reported in her most recent income and expense declarations. In doing so, the court rejected father's reliance on other evidence, such as mother's loan applications and receipt of rental income, to establish that mother's income had not decreased as she claimed. We agree with father that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to determine mother's income only on a limited subset of the evidence, despite numerous inconsistencies and prior court determinations that mother's reporting was incomplete.
The court calculates the guideline support amount based on the annual net disposable income of each parent, which it computes by "deducting from the parent's annual gross income the actual amounts attributable" to enumerated items, including income tax liability. (§ 4059.) "Annual gross income" is defined in section 4058, subdivision (a) as "income from whatever source derived," with specified exceptions, and includes "(1) Income such as commissions, salaries, royalties, wages, bonuses, rents, dividends, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, workers' compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, social security benefits, and spousal support actually received from a person not a party to the proceeding to establish a child support order under this article.[;] (2) Income from the proprietorship of a business, such as gross receipts from the business reduced by expenditures required for the operation of the business[; and] (3) In the discretion of the court, employee benefits or selfemployment benefits, taking into consideration the benefit to the employee, any corresponding reduction in living expenses, and other relevant facts." These codified items "'are by way of illustration only. Income from other sources . . . should properly be factored into the "annual gross income" computation.'" (Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 285, see also Macilwaine, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 529.)
As recommended by CSSD, the court here based the guideline calculation on mother's statement in her income and expense declaration submitted on March 14, 2023 that she made $9,975 in self-employment income the previous month. We note that mother filed her updated declaration less than a week before the continued hearing on March 20, despite the court's prior order that the parties submit updated information three weeks in advance. She listed no rental income on her income and expense declaration and did not provide, as required, a "schedule showing gross receipts less cash expenses for each piece of property." She also provided the "most recent draft" of her 2022 Schedule C for her health care practice, but no other profit and loss statements or recent tax returns. Then, according to father, on March 16, mother belatedly provided him with eight recent loan applications and her 2020 and 2021 tax returns. As a result of mother's untimely production, CSSD stated it was unable to include the latest documents in its guideline recommendation; similarly, it is unclear whether the court reviewed them.
The parties discussed these documents at the hearing, but it does not appear that the documents were filed and they are not included in the record on appeal.
Father contends it was unreasonable for the court to rely only on mother's stated income in her income and expense declaration given the evidence she actually had a higher income than reported. While we do not revisit the court's credibility determinations or reweigh evidence on appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the court's finding as to mother's income. As an initial matter, we note that two prior court orders found mother's reporting of her income unreliable and incomplete and detailed inconsistencies in mother's financial information. The trial court attributed such inconsistencies to mother filing her prior income and expense declarations while appearing in propria persona. However, the evidence shows that mother's inconsistent statements regarding her income were not limited to her time as a self-represented litigant. For example, in her January 2021 income and expense declaration, filed by her counsel, mother stated that her self-employment income for the past year averaged $4,117 per month. A few months later, in April 2021, still represented by counsel, mother stipulated that her average monthly income was $14,779, based on receipts from the first 10 months of 2020. Two months after that, in June 2021, mother submitted an income and expense declaration in propria persona reporting that her average monthly income over the preceding year was $2,500. Mother herself claimed that these inconsistencies were due to inadequate representation by prior counsel; alternatively, she argued that the $14,779 of income to which she stipulated in April 2021 was based on pre-pandemic income from 2019, a claim belied by the language of the stipulation itself. Thus, mother's explanations for why circumstances had changed after the April 2021 stipulation either reflected events that had already occurred at the time of the stipulation (the 2020 pandemic and the January 2021 birth of her second child) or were not supported by the record.
Moreover, father provided evidence of multiple additional sources of income that mother had not reported on her income and expense declarations. In particular, father pointed to the rental income reported on two 1099s paid to one of mother's LLCs in 2022. Mother did not report this income on her declaration, nor did she provide the requisite rental schedule identifying all rents received and expenses incurred. Similarly, father pointed to multiple loan applications for real property completed by mother in 2022 and 2023, in which mother reported a monthly income of $50,000 in one instance and $15,000 in several others. Mother's counsel told the court that mother would testify that the former amount was an error and the latter amount was "stale" as it was based on pre-pandemic income. But mother did not testify or otherwise offer any evidence supporting these statements. Nor did mother dispute the evidence offered by father that mother had entered into loans for, and then purchased, seven additional real properties in Georgia in 2022. Mother also acknowledged that her mother paid the mortgages on both of the Los Angeles residences that they co-owned, thus reducing mother's living expenses.
The trial court did not address any of this evidence offered by father in concluding that mother's income was limited to the self-employment income she reported. The court was required to include rental income in calculating mother's gross income. (§ 4058, subd. (a)(1).) Moreover, while the court had discretion to accept or reject much of this evidence (see, e.g., § 4058, subd. (a)(3) [court has discretion to include reduction in living expenses]; In re Marriage of Calcaterra &Badakhsh (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 28, 34 [presumption of correctness of tax returns may be rebutted by a statement of income on a loan application]), we conclude the court abused its discretion in its blanket rejection of all of it, particularly in light of the numerous inconsistencies in mother's reported income.
B. Hardship deduction
Father also contends that the trial court erred by awarding mother a hardship deduction without making the findings required by section 4072. While recalculation of mother's income, as detailed above, would necessarily require reconsideration of the hardship deduction, we also agree with father that the court was required to state its findings as to the deduction on the record and its failure to do so was prejudicial error.
When calculating the net disposable income of parents for purposes of the guideline support formula, a trial court may make a deduction from gross income "for hardship, as defined by Sections 4070 to 4073." (§ 4059, subd. (g).) Section 4070 sets forth an allowable deduction if a parent is "experiencing extreme financial hardship due to justifiable expenses" resulting from statutorily enumerated circumstances, including responsibility for the "minimum basic living expenses" of other minor children living with the parent. (§ 4071, subd. (a)(2).) "The court, on its own motion or on the request of a party, may allow these income deductions as necessary to accommodate these expenses." (§ 4071, subd. (a)(2).)
Although the presence of other children is a valid consideration when evaluating a hardship deduction, "a hardship deduction is not a 'foregone conclusion' on the birth of new children; . . . the family's income, as well as purported expenses, have to be considered in making the 'hardship' determination." (In re Marriage of Paulin (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382.) "If the minimum basic living expenses of other-relationship resident dependent minors were to be considered as a matter of course, they would have been included among the standard deductions in section 4059. Thus, the Legislature has limited the deduction for hardship to the unusual situation, such as where the custodial parent does not receive any support for these children or the reasonable minimum living expenses are unusually high in the context of the family's income. [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Carlsen (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 212, 217, fn. 5 (Carlsen).)
If the court does allow a hardship deduction, section 4072 requires the court to "do both of the following: [¶] (1) State the reasons supporting the deduction in writing or on the record [and] [¶] (2) Document the amount of the deduction and the underlying facts and circumstances." (§ 4072, subd. (a).) Additionally, "[w]henever possible, the court shall specify the duration of the deduction." (§ 4072, subd. (b).) Thus, section 4072 reflects a legislative requirement that the court provide "an articulation of the reasoning by which the court has determined that the minimum basic living expenses of resident dependent minors from other relationships constitute a hardship rather than an expense the custodial parent is expected to bear without assistance from the obligor parent." (Carlsen, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 217.)
Here, the trial court did not state express findings as to the application of the hardship deduction either on the record or in the support orders issued. At the December 2022 hearing, the court stated that a hardship deduction for mother's younger child "could be considered," but noted that the deduction "does not necessarily need to be given in any circumstance." Each version of the guideline calculation provided by CSSD included a hardship deduction amount between $500 and $600 and listed 0.5 as the entry for "Hardship Deduction Children." The court did not otherwise discuss the deduction or make any findings as to mother's entitlement to it. This was error.
We must also assess whether the court's failure to make the findings required by section 4072 was prejudicial. The failure to make the mandatory findings "precludes effective appellate review and may constitute reversible error if the missing information is not otherwise discernible from the record." (In re Marriage of Hubner (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175, 183.) Thus, we review the record to determine if there is evidence from which we can infer the necessary findings to support the hardship deductions. (See Carlsen, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 218.)
While it is evident from the record that the court based the hardship deduction on the fact that mother had custody of her younger child C., there is insufficient evidence to infer a finding that mother was experiencing extreme financial hardship due to C.'s basic living expenses. We note that mother reported receiving some support from C.'s father, including that he "voluntarily" paid for childcare for C. while mother worked and mother used his car rather than having to pay for her own transportation. Moreover, mother had given birth to C. several months prior to the April 2021 stipulated judgment, but did not seek a hardship deduction at that time. It is unclear whether the court's acceptance of the CSSD's proposed hardship deduction was based on a finding of extreme financial hardship. The record is also unclear as to the basis for awarding mother a 50 percent credit for her child. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the court's error was prejudicial.
We therefore conclude that the court's failure to provide a statement of reasons for awarding the hardship deduction warrants reversal of the order. DISPOSITION
Father also argued in his opening brief on appeal that mother was barred from seeking relief under the disentitlement doctrine, based on mother's failure to pay father's attorney fees as ordered. However, in his request for judicial notice, which we grant, father reported that the parties have resolved the dispute over attorney fees. This issue is therefore moot.
The order granting mother's request for modification of child support is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Father shall bear his own costs on appeal.
We concur: CURREY, P.J., ZUKIN, J.