Court Opinion

ID: 9952791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:03:26.50815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:29.935490
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 County of San Diego v. D.L. CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,                                                 D081738

           Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. DF215239)

 D.L.

           Appellant;

 S.H.,

           Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Deborah A. Cumba, Commissioner. Affirmed.
         D.L., in pro. per., for Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney
General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Darin L. Wessell, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Respondent, County of San Diego.
         Lehr Law and Jessica E. Lehr for Respondent, S.H.
                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1

      Relying on his inability to find work and zero percent custody
timeshare, D.L. (Father) filed a request for order (RFO) seeking to modify
his child support obligations regarding his daughter, A.L. The trial court
denied the RFO, finding no change in circumstances and leaving in place the

existing child support order imputing a full-time minimum wage.2 Father
challenges that ruling on various grounds, all of which we reject.
      First, Father asserts that by imputing income to him, the trial court
failed to implement the statewide uniform guideline for child support in

Family Code section 4050 et seq.3 This claim lacks merit because “[i]n
determining a parent’s income for purposes of calculating guideline child
support,” section 4058, subdivision (b) authorizes a trial court to “impute to
that parent an income different from his or her actual income—i.e., an
income amount that corresponds with that parent’s earning capacity.”
(In re Marriage of Sorge (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626, 642–643.)
      Second, Father contends the trial court did not apply the proper
burdens of proof and production because he offered evidence of his lack of
income, while the County of San Diego (County) and A.L.’s mother, S.H.
(Mother), did not produce any evidence to support the existing amount of
child support. However, the County and Mother were not required to produce
any evidence because Father, as the party seeking to reduce child support,

1    This case is appropriate for resolution by memorandum opinion
because it raises “no substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1; see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)
2    The prior order was entered on October 17, 2022, and the order from
which Father appeals was entered on February 23, 2023.
3     Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.
                                        2
bore the burden to show changed circumstances and “ ‘a lack of ability and
opportunity to earn income.’ ” (In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231
Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246−1247.) Additionally, Father is effectively arguing
there was insufficient evidence to permit a finding that he had the
opportunity to work full-time, and we cannot consider this claim on appeal

given Father’s election to proceed without a reporter’s transcript4 and the
absence of any apparent error in the record. (Estate of Fain (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 973, 992 [“Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided and
no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment
must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters.”].)
      Third, Father argues he is immune from child support because he does
not have custody of A.L., relying on Civil Code section 3526, which states,
“No man is responsible for that which no man can control.” Civil Code
section 3526 is a maxim of jurisprudence intended to aid in the just
application of the Civil Code. (Civil Code, § 3509.) Father’s obligation to
support A.L. is set forth in the Family Code, arising from the parent-child
relationship without a prerequisite of control or custody (see Family Code,
§§ 3900, 3901, 4053), and that statutory obligation may not be nullified by a
legal maxim. (See People v. One 1940 Ford V-8 Coupe (1950) 36 Cal.2d 471,
476.) In fact, Father’s lack of physical responsibility for A.L. weighs in favor
of requiring him to pay child support. (§ 4053, subds. (b) & (i).)
      Finally, Father claims the trial court’s alleged errors violated his
constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection. Having found

4     In designating the record on appeal, Father checked a box indicating
that he chose to proceed on appeal “WITHOUT a record of oral proceedings
(what was said at the hearing or trial) in the superior court.”

                                        3
no error as discussed above and lacking a reporter’s transcript to review what
transpired at the hearing, we likewise reject these claims as unsupported.
                               DISPOSITION

      The February 23, 2023 order is affirmed. The County and Mother are
entitled to costs on appeal.

                                                                    DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                      4