Cnty. of Alameda Dep't of Child Support Servs. v. T.O.

1

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.O., Defendant and Appellant, J.P., Respondent.

A166581

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

March 4, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF20081030

RICHMAN, J.

In these proceedings filed by the County of Alameda Department of Child Support Services (Department), the trial court ordered T.O. (Father) to make monthly child support payments to his ex-wife, J.P. (Mother). Proceeding without an attorney, Father appeals, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to issue the child support orders, that the orders themselves were erroneous in a number of respects, and that the proceedings were unfair. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The General Setting

Mother and Father are the parents of J.O., born in March 2017.^[1] Mother and Father were previously married. In March 2018, a trial court in China issued a judgment dissolving their marriage, awarding custody of J.O. to Mother (both of whom lived in China at the time), and granting visitation to Father. In addition, Father was ordered to pay 2,500 yuan (approximately $347) per month in child support to Mother (hereafter "Chinese support order"). On June 21, an appellate court in China upheld the judgment.

Mother eventually remarried. She, her new spouse, and J.O. lived in Michigan in 2019, then moved to New Jersey in 2021.

Father owns residential property in Alameda, California and San Diego, California. The San Diego property was used as a rental property. Father testified that he moved to Nevada in January 2021 and moved back to live in his Alameda home in December 2021.

Mother had a part-time job in Michigan, but that job ended on January 30, 2021. She earned $120.98 in 2021. Father testified that he had worked for a company called OpenText since 2014, where he earned around $10,000 per month, and stopped working there in December 2021.

The Proceedings Below

On November 30, 2020, the Department filed in Alameda Superior Court a complaint against Father to establish child support. On March 16, 2021, Father was personally served with the complaint while he was in Alameda County.

On April 21, 2021 Father filed an answer. He did not dispute parentage, but asserted among other things that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of child support because there was an existing Chinese support order. He also argued the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him because he had moved to Nevada around January 2021.

On May 17, 2021, the Department filed a motion for judgment with respect to child support. On June 7, 2021, Father filed a response to the motion. In light of Father's jurisdictional challenges, the parties were ordered to submit memoranda of points and authorities on whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the issue of child support and over Father.^[2]

On September 10, 2021, the Department filed such a memorandum asserting that the court had personal jurisdiction over Father because he owned a home in Alameda County, lived in that home for many years, was personally served with the complaint in Alameda, and had consented to jurisdiction by making a general appearance in this proceeding via filing an answer to the complaint.

The Department argued the court also had subject matter jurisdiction, despite the existing Chinese support order. It first noted that under California law, the superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over child support matters. (Fam Code, § 200.)^[3] The Department then explained that although the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (§ 5700.101 et seq.; UIFSA) provides that a foreign child support order may be recognized in California for enforcement (§ 5700.601), the issuing country (1) must have been declared a reciprocating jurisdiction by either the United States or California; (2) must be found to have laws that are substantially similar to the UIFSA; or (3) enforces the Hague Convention. (§ 5700.102, subd. (5).) The Department argued that China does not meet any of these criteria and, as such, the Chinese support order should not be recognized.

In response, Father contested jurisdiction, arguing among other things that Mother and J.O. had neither lived nor resided in California; Father had moved to Nevada in January 2021 and became a resident of that state; the Chinese support order was still in effect and the Department therefore improperly filed this action; and Mother was "concealing the child" and denying Father reasonable visitation.

On October 26, 2021, the trial court held a hearing, where Mother and Father, representing themselves, as well as the Department's attorney, appeared remotely.^[4] After hearing testimony from Mother and Father and arguments from all parties, the court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of child support. It agreed with the Department that under the UIFSA, "China is not a participating country or a member of the Hague Convention," and thus, the Department was not precluded from filing a complaint to establish child support. Additionally, the court found that Father's ownership of property in California established sufficient minimum contacts with California to support exercising personal jurisdiction over him.

The court issued a temporary order requiring Father to pay $1,430 per month in child support, effective retroactively on January 1, 2021. The court reserved jurisdiction "back to January 1, 2021" and continued the matter to December 6, 2021 to address Father's claims that he had made direct support payments to Mother. A "Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations" containing the court's orders was filed on November 2, 2021.

Subsequently the court held hearings on December 6, 2021 and March 21 2022, at which Mother and Father testified regarding their respective incomes, which they had reported in their income and expense declarations. Mother filed her declaration on June 25, 2021, and Father, on February 18, 2022. At the conclusion of the March 21, 2022 hearing, the court determined the matter needed to be addressed at a long-cause hearing, which it ultimately set for June 29, 2022. The court ordered the parties to submit and exchange updated income and expense declarations, with documentation of earnings from all sources; their 2021 federal tax returns including all schedules and attachments or, if not yet filed, their last filed federal tax returns; any W-2 (wage and tax statement) and 1099 (non-employment income) forms received for 2021; and, if either had self-employment income, a profit and loss statement covering the period of January 1, 2022 through May 1, 2022.

The court also explained that each party would have the opportunity to present their evidence at the long-cause hearing. It then instructed the parties to present any exhibits to the court clerk before the hearing, which exhibits must be placed in a binder and pre-marked for identification in the order that they would be presented.

On June 29, 2022, Mother, Father, and the Department appeared remotely at the long-cause hearing. The Department reported that both parents provided their 2021 federal tax returns, but that they were unsigned and lacked documents such as their 1099 forms. Further, some of the documents that Father provided were redacted. Mother did not submit an updated income and expense declaration.

The Department made the following offer of proof. For the period of January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, the Department calculated guideline child support of $1,932 per month.^[5] The Department based this calculation on, among other factors, that Father had zero timeshare; filed head of household claiming a child of another relationship as a dependent; and had per month income of $10,530 based on his W-2, dividend income of $865, and rental income of $1,629 based on his 2021 tax returns. The Department offered that, based on Mother's tax returns, Mother had no income and her new spouse had monthly income of $9,491.

For the period starting January 1, 2022, the Department calculated guideline child support of $1,242 per month. It offered that the financial factors for 2021 remained the same in 2022 with some exceptions, namely that Father received $1,950 per month in unemployment benefits and received $3,600 per month in rental income. The only change for Mother was that her new spouse's income was now $8,916 per month.

Following this, the court examined both Father and Mother. The Department cross-examined Father, as did Mother. Mother and Father were each given an opportunity to present their own arguments and evidence.

Following their arguments, the court took the matter under submission, after which Father requested a statement of decision.

On September 12, 2022, the court issued its "Child Support Orders." It was a comprehensive, six-page, single-spaced ruling, which began with a summary of the procedural history. It then recounted the parents' arguments from the hearing, as follows:

"Father continued to argue the court lacks jurisdiction to issue orders. He further alleges the court lacks the ability to order him to pay child support because: 1) Mother is hiding the child and preventing Father from having any visitation; 2) Mother is underemployed and has the ability to work and earn an income; 3) Mother sold a house and failed to report income generated from the sale; and 4) Mother is not credible.

"Mother also contends Father is not credible; he is hiding his income having failed to disclose the amount of rental income received from his Alameda and San Diego Properties...."

Over the next four pages, the court set forth its extensive "Findings," which included the following:

F...