## Facts

- Lori McGinley, the custodial parent of a child born in January 1993, filed an action in February 1994 to establish paternity and obtain child support from Stan Herman, the noncustodial father.
- McGinley reported monthly net disposable income of about $400 and monthly expenses of about $7,627, and sought guideline support based on Herman’s asserted wealth.
- Herman admitted paternity and sought child support based on the child’s “reasonable needs,” asserting substantial investment losses and reporting an average monthly cash flow deficit of about $42,532 with claimed monthly living expenses of about $31,457.
- McGinley offered a CPA analysis concluding Herman’s net worth exceeded $11 million, his living expenses were about $80,390 per month, and he had about $116,256 per month available for support; using that figure, the CPA calculated guideline support of about $14,617 per month.
- The trial court refused to hear testimony from McGinley’s CPA, stating it was not going to have a “CPA contest.”
- The trial court found Herman had “extraordinarily high income,” but set child support materially below the guideline figure (about $6,000 per month) and reduced certain expenses claimed by McGinley, without a detailed explanation connecting the award to Herman’s lifestyle or to statutory grounds for a downward deviation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering child support below the presumptively correct guideline amount after finding the father had “extraordinarily high income,” without adequate findings and explanation tied to statutory factors and the child’s right to share in the father’s standard of living.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the support order and remanded for a new child support determination.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by setting an award that did not meaningfully relate to the father’s standard of living and by failing to justify a downward departure from guideline support with sufficient findings.

## Legal Principles

- The statewide uniform child support guideline amount is presumptively correct; departure requires statutory justification and adequate findings permitting appellate review.
- In “extraordinarily high income” cases, a court may deviate downward only if applying the guideline would exceed the child’s needs, and the court must explain why the guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate.
- Children are entitled to share in the standard of living of both parents; support for a wealthy parent is not limited to bare necessities.
- Discretion in setting child support must be exercised “along legal lines,” including meaningful determinations of financial capacity and a reasoned connection between the ordered amount, the child’s needs in context, and statutory factors.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a new child support determination because the trial court’s below-guideline award, made after an “extraordinarily high income” finding, lacked adequate financial findings and a reasoned explanation linking any deviation to statutory criteria and the child’s right to participate in the father’s standard of living.


McGinley v. Herman, 50 Cal. App. 4th 936, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 921 (Ct. App. 1996)