## Facts

- A dissolution judgment in 1989 awarded Camilla physical custody of the parties’ three minor children and required William to pay $1,375 per month in child support.
- The parties later stipulated to increases in support: to $1,600 per month in 1990 (based on William’s increased income) and to $2,100 per month in 1992 (based on both parents’ then-current earnings).
- In 1992, Camilla remarried a wealthy spouse (Casparis).
- Camilla asserted a prenuptial agreement under which Casparis’s income was his separate property and neither she nor the children had rights to it.
- In 1993, William sought a reduction in child support, arguing the new spouse’s wealth created “special circumstances” supporting a downward adjustment.
- By the 1994 hearing on William’s request, Family Code § 4057.5 had taken effect, replacing a prior statute that had more broadly allowed consideration of new-mate income.
- The trial court limited financial discovery from the new spouse but reduced William’s child support obligation after indicating it would consider the new spouse’s income as related to the children’s and Camilla’s standard of living.
- Camilla appealed, arguing the trial court was required to apply Family Code § 4057.5 and could not use her new spouse’s income to reduce William’s obligation absent statutory exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Code § 4057.5 applied to a child support modification hearing held after the statute’s effective date even though the modification request was filed before the statute took effect.
2. Whether, under Family Code § 4057.5, a court may consider the custodial parent’s new spouse’s income to reduce the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation absent an “extraordinary case” showing extreme and severe hardship.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the child support modification order and remanded.
- The court held Family Code § 4057.5 governed the 1994 hearing and the trial court erred by not applying its restrictions.
- The court directed that further proceedings apply the governing guideline framework while excluding new-spouse income except as specifically permitted by § 4057.5.

## Legal Principles

- In child support modification proceedings, courts generally apply the law in effect at the time the decision is made unless the Legislature directs otherwise or application would impair vested rights.
- Child support obligations are modifiable and are not treated as vested in a manner that prevents application of intervening statutory changes at a later hearing.
- Family Code § 4057.5 generally prohibits consideration of a parent’s subsequent spouse’s (or partner’s) income in determining or modifying child support.
- New-spouse income may be considered only in narrowly defined circumstances, including an extraordinary case where exclusion would cause extreme and severe hardship to a child.
- Legislative policy places the duty of child support on the parents, not on a stepparent or new spouse; the new spouse’s wealth alone does not justify reducing a parent’s support obligation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the trial court was required to apply Family Code § 4057.5 at the 1994 modification hearing and could not rely on the custodial parent’s new spouse’s wealth to reduce the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation absent the statute’s narrow, expressly defined exceptions.


In re Marriage of Wood, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236 (Ct. App. 1995)