White v. Marciano

• Decision Date: 04 March 1987
• Citation: 235 Cal.Rptr. 779,190 Cal.App.3d 1026
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Fabienne WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maurice MARCIANO, Defendant and Respondent. B 021549.

Page 779

235 Cal.Rptr. 779

190 Cal.App.3d 1026

Fabienne WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maurice MARCIANO, Defendant and Respondent.

B 021549.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

March 4, 1987.

As Modified April 3, 1987.

Allred, Maroko, Goldberg & Ribakoff, Michael Maroko and Elizabeth Grady, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Simon Taub, Beverly Hills, and Edward J. Horowitz, a Professional Corp. by Edward J. Horowitz, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.

FUKUTO, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, Fabienne White, appeals the court's judgment in her paternity action against respondent, Maurice Marciano, in which he was ordered to pay child support in the sum of $1,500 per month. ¹ We affirm.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred by:

1. Granting respondent's motion for protective order which precluded discovery of respondent's net worth and lifestyle.

2. Refusing to allow the presentation of evidence of respondent's net worth and lifestyle at time of trial.

3. Awarding only $8,000 in attorneys' fees.

4. Ruling, "in effect, that illegitimate children may be treated differently from legitimate children insofar as the lifestyle of a wealthy parent was disregarded by the court."

Appellant filed her action seeking a declaration that respondent is the father of appellant's baby and an order that respondent pay "reasonable child support in accordance with his abilities and the child's needs."

In an order to show cause for temporary support, filed two days after filing of the paternity complaint, appellant asserted reasonable support would amount to $3,500 per month plus medical benefits. In his response to the order to show cause, respondent admitted that he was the baby's father and that he could "pay any reasonable sum for the support of this newly born child." He submitted a responsive income and expense declaration, but gave no financial information, asserting that it was "not applicable in view of stipulation."

At the hearing on the order to show cause, respondent again stipulated that he had the ability to pay any reasonable support order, including the $3,500 per month requested by appellant, but contended that $3,500 per month was excessive. He also admitted that he had an income of approximately $1 million per year.

Based upon respondent's admissions and stipulations, the court sustained objections to questions concerning respondent's lifestyle and net worth.

Respondent was ordered to pay $1,500 per month as temporary support for the baby.

Following the hearing on the order to show cause, appellant served several subpoenas, notices to produce and related discovery documents directed to custodians of respondent's business and personal financial records. Appellant also sought respondent's deposition and requested production of various documents, including tax returns, financial statements, checkbooks, savings accounts, etc. Appellant stated that the documents were material to the issues involved in the case because, "these documents will reflect the amount of income available to defendant to pay said child support."

Respondent moved for a protective order. He again acknowledged that he was the father of the child, had the ability to pay any reasonable child support and that his gross income was approximately $1 million per year. He further admitted that he lived a lifestyle commensurate with someone who has earnings of that amount, including traveling, eating in fine restaurants and entertaining. He argued that more detailed information was not relevant since he had made the foregoing stipulations.

Appellant argued that the effect of respondent's stipulations and refusal to provide evidence concerning his finances and lifestyle was to deprive the court of the ability to make a reasonable award of child support because the court would have no evidence, no facts, and no information of circumstances on which to base its final decision.

The trial court granted respondent's motion and subsequently denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. ²

Trial was held April 8, 1986, when the baby was 21 months old. Respondent repeated his admissions and stipulations. Appellant argued for the admission of evidence concerning respondent's net worth and lifestyle and repeated her contention that without such evidence, the court had no facts on which to base a child support order. Appellant also advanced the argument that the court's failure to allow into evidence more detailed information was but a veiled attempt to treat an illegitimate child differently from a legitimate child and that such an attempt was against public policy. The matter was taken under submission and on April 9, 1986, the court issued a tentative decision. On June 5, 1986, the trial court entered final judgment based upon the tentative decision. The court ordered respondent to pay $1,500 per month support plus medical insurance and to pay $8,000 attorneys' fees.

This case involves, inter alia, the following question:

Is detailed evidence concerning a non-custodial parent's lifestyle and net worth relevant in determining what amount of child support is "reasonable" where the non-custodial parent stipulates that he has an income of $1 million per year and is able to pay any reasonable amount of child support?

The father and mother of a child have an equal responsibility to support and educate their child. (Civ.Code, § 196.) Illegitimate and legitimate children are to be treated alike. (Stargell v. Stargell (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 504, 507, 69 Cal.Rptr. 715.) California has enacted legislation to guide the trial court in determining both the needs of the child and the amount of child support to be awarded to meet those needs.

The Agnos Child Support Standards Act of 1984 establishes a system of mandatory minimum child support amounts. (Civ.Code, § 4700 et seq.) When appropriate, a higher amount of child support may be awarded. In setting a higher level of child support, the court "shall be guided by the criteria set forth in applicable statutes, relevant case law ... and the legislative intent that children share in their parents' standard of living ..." (Civ.Code, § 4724.)

A child is to be supported in the manner suitable to the child's circumstances, taking into consideration the parents' respective earnings or earning capacity of the parties. (Civ.Code, § 196.)

Generally, children are entitled to be supported in a style and condition consonant with the position in society of their parents. (In re Marriage of Aylesworth (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 869, 165 Cal.Rptr. 389.) A parent's duty of support does not end with the furnishing of mere necessities if the parent is able to afford more. Support must be reasonable under the circumstances. (Stargell v. Stargell, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 507, 69 Cal.Rptr. 715.) How much "more," i.e., what amount is "reasonable" is defined in relation to a child's "needs" and varies with the circumstances of the parties. (Singer v. Singer, (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 807, 813, 87 Cal.Rptr. 42.)

Clearly where the child has a wealthy parent, that child is entitled to, and therefore "needs" something more than the bare necessities of life. It is also clear that the court is required to consider, in a general sense, the non-custodial parent's standard of living. However, contrary to appellant's contentions, a trial court is not required to consider detailed lifestyle and net worth evidence in reaching a decision as to the needs of the child or the amount of support to be awarded.

The standard of living to which a child is entitled should be measured in terms of the standard of living attainable by the income available to the parents rather than by evidence of the manner in which the parents' income is expended and the parents' resulting lifestyle. It matters not whether the respondent, non-custodial parent, miserly hoarded his $1 million per year income and lived the life of a pauper or whether he lived the life of a prince spending every cent of the available income.

We believe evidence of detailed lifestyle and net worth to be relevant only in those situations where the ability of the non-custodial parent to make adequate support payments may be affected by the unwise expenditure of income to the detriment of the supported minor. Where there is no question of the non-custodial parent's ability to pay any reasonable support order, we conclude that evidence of detailed lifestyle to be irrelevant to the issue of the amount of support to be paid and thus protected from discovery and inadmissible in determining the support order.

Appellant's reliance upon In re Marriage of Aylesworth and Singer v. Singer is misplaced.

In Aylesworth, the trial court increased the amount of child support from $325 per month to the sum of $900 per month per child. On appeal by the father, the judgment was affirmed. The court took into consideration the father's stipulation that he could pay any reasonable amount of child support and the father's admission that he lived a life of luxury. The court held, in essence, that these admissions were factors to be considered in determining the needs of the children. The court concluded that the children could expect to live in a style and condition consonant with their parents' position in society. While it is true that the Aylesworth trial court had more detailed information concerning the father's net worth and lifestyle available to it than did the trial court in the instant case, such detailed information was not necessary to the Aylesworth trial court's decision. (In re Marriage of Aylesworth, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 869, 165 Cal.Rptr. 389.)

In Singer, the father also stipulated that he had an affluent living standard and had the ability to pay any amount of child support. The mother appealed, objecting to the amount awarded. The court of appeal remanded the case to the trial court for a reevaluation of the circumstances of ...