Court Opinion

ID: 9747474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:17:00.951805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.937753
License: Public Domain

RYLAARSDAM, J., Concurring.
I concur.
But because I was a member of the panel that decided In re Marriage of Padilla (1995) 38, Cal.App.4th 1212 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 555], I need to explain my willingness to accept the criticism of that case contained in our opinion.
There is some benefit to be derived from experience and one thing I have learned during my 13 years on the court is the danger posed by categorical statements injudicial opinions. It is our job to decide cases. No more, no less. The statements we made in Padilla criticized in our opinion went beyond that mandate.
*1314I am still of the opinion that the parents’ duty to support their children is a paramount duty. But this does not mean there never are circumstances where other considerations may also come into play. A most obvious example is where a parent must weigh a reduced income against a need to spend more time with his or her family. Ultimately it is the job of the trial court to weigh all the needs of the children, not only their economic needs, against the ability of the parents to fill these needs.
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 22, 2008, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.