A California appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision regarding child support payments in the case of Katie Stern and Peter Stern. The court found that the lower court erred by excluding Peter's wages from the child support calculation. This ruling affects the financial responsibilities of both parents regarding their two children.

The case, known as In re the Marriage of Katie Stern and Peter Stern, was filed under docket number D086838. It centers on a postjudgment order that reduced the monthly child support payment Peter was required to make to Katie. The appellate court's decision is significant as it underscores the importance of accurately calculating child support based on all sources of income.

Background

Katie and Peter Stern married in 2010 and separated in 2017. They have two children together. After their divorce, Katie was awarded primary physical custody, while Peter received visitation rights. Initially, a neutral expert determined Peter's income to be $158,244 per year, leading to a child support order of $2,500 per month. This figure was set above the standard guideline amount.

In January 2023, Peter filed a request to increase his time with the children and decrease his child support payments. He claimed that his income had decreased due to changes in the solar energy market affecting his business. In response, Katie sought to maintain the current child support amount, arguing that Peter had not provided adequate financial documentation to support his claims of reduced income.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and found that the trial court had made a significant error in calculating child support. The trial court had excluded Peter's wages from the income calculation, which led to a lower child support obligation than what was warranted. The appellate court stated, "The court erred in calculating guideline child support" and emphasized that all income, including wages, must be considered.

The court noted that Peter's total available income should have included both his wages and adjusted net income from his business. The appellate court ordered the trial court to recalculate child support based on Peter's total income, which included his undisputed wages of $98,996 annually. The ruling was made by Acting Presiding Justice Dato, with Justices Do and Rubin concurring.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the Stern family, particularly regarding the financial support for their children. By requiring the trial court to include Peter's wages in the child support calculation, the appellate court ensures that the support amount reflects the true financial capabilities of both parents. This decision reinforces the principle that child support should be based on a comprehensive understanding of a parent's income.

The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases in California, emphasizing the need for courts to consider all sources of income when determining child support obligations. This could lead to more equitable support arrangements for children in similar circumstances across the state.

What's Next

The case has been remanded to the trial court for recalculation of child support. It is unclear whether Peter will appeal this decision further. However, the appellate court's ruling clearly indicates that the trial court must adhere to the guidelines for calculating child support based on all available income.