Page 1
Considering Income of Mother’s New Husband in Setting Child Support Was Error—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judge erred in adjusting downward the child-support obligation of a father based on the nearly $1 million annual income of the mother’s new husband who was providing for his step-children’s’ needs, Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday.
It also declared that San Diego Superior Court Commissioner Lizbet Muñoz was justified in ascribing to the mother, Christa Hastie, a monthly income of $12,500 which is what she had been making as a software engineer at Sony Pictures Entertainment before resigning in 2014 after remarrying.
Presiding Justice Judith McConnell authored the unpublished opinion which reverses a $650 support obligation imposed on the ex-husband, Peter Waydo, and orders a recalculation, not taking into account the income of Hastie’s new spouse, Dr. Ali Sepahdari, a diagnostic radiologist at Scripps Hospital.
Hastie married Waydo, then a race car driver (and now a mechanical engineer), on Sept. 6, 2003, three months before she became a cast member on the CBS reality show, Survivor. A dissolution of marriage proceeding was instituted in 2012, and the divorce became final the following year.
At Hastie’s instance, the San Diego County Department of Child Support Services on Sept. 13, 2021 filed an action against Waydo seeking child support. It, along with Waydo, was a respondent in the appeal by Hastie who argued that she did not have the earning capacity ascribed to her because her skills as a computer programmer are out-of-date.
|
|
|
CHRISTA HASTIE housewife |
Hastie’s Testimony
In testimony before Muñoz, she explained why she was seeking from Waydo child support for the two children notwithstanding her current husband’s willingness to provide for them, saying:
“I don’t believe it’s my current husband’s responsibility to support my children. I mean, honestly, I thought it was the father’s responsibility to support the children.”
In deviating, downward, from the child support guidelines, the commissioner said that Sepahdari’s “income is not fiction,” adding:
“I mean, it’s real. It’s paying all the expenses. So the court is considering that as a fact when I’m looking at the deviation.”
Family Code Section
In the opinion reversing the order, McConnell pointed to Family Code §4057.5(a)(2) which provides:
“The income of the obligee parent’s subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case….”
She wrote:
“Few cases have interpreted section 4057.5 since it was codified into law in 1993. However, those cases that have interpreted the statute have concluded that it broadly prohibits a court from considering a new spouse’s income—either directly or indirectly—except when it is an extraordinary case and the exclusion of the new spouse’s income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to the child.”
She went on to declare:
“[T]he trial court expressly found the children would not suffer extreme and severe hardship if the income of Mother’s high-earning new spouse was excluded from the support determination. Nonetheless, it deviated from the guideline level based on the fact that Mother’s new spouse paid all of her family’s expenses….[T]he trial court’s decision was tantamount to a finding that the support payments should be reduced because of new spouse income. Absent a finding that the exclusion of new spouse income would cause extreme and severe hardship for the children, the consideration of new spouse income violated section 4057.5.”
Implied Findings Doctrine
Waydo argued that because Hastie did not ask for a statement of decision, the doctrine of implied findings applies and it must be presumed that Muñoz made all the findings that were necessary to justify the order. McConnell responded:
“In short, Father asks us to turn a blind eye to the actual reasons the trial court deviated downward, which it articulated quite clearly during the evidentiary hearing. We decline Father’s invitation. Because the doctrine of implied findings is merely a corollary to the presumption of correctness, we will not presume the trial court acted properly and within its discretion when the appellate record unmistakably demonstrates it based its decision on an impermissible factor.”
McConnell did apply the doctrine of implied findings, however, in determining that Hastie had the capacity to earn $12,500 as a computer programmer.
“Here, the findings of ultimate fact include findings that Mother had the ability and opportunity to work,” she wrote.
“Substantial evidence supported these implied findings.”
The case is County of San Diego v. P.W., D079477.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company