California Yolo County Divorce Physical Custody Noncustodial Parent Offset Funds Lawyers Attorneys

COUNTY OF YOLO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ERIC WORRELL, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
March 6, 1989

Defendant and Angelika E. Worrell (mother) are the parents of Jasmine, born April 20, 1978. The parents have apparently divorced. In the couple’s marriage dissolution action, the family law court apparently reserved the issue of child support. The parents have a de facto joint custody arrangement under which the child spends equivalent time with each parent alternating every other week. No court order designated either parent as the child’s primary caretaker.  On October 30, 1987, Yolo County (County) sued father for child support and reimbursement of welfare funds. Mother had returned to school and essentially had no income except aid to families with dependent children (AFDC). The mother’s worksheet described father as the “noncustodial” parent. The court concluded that the pending domestic relations case did not deprive it of jurisdiction to hear the County’s independent AFDC reimbursement action. The court next ruled that a parent having joint legal and physical custody of a minor child was still under the scope of Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350.  Finally, the court ruled that Civil Code section 4727 prohibited credit to father for the support he furnished the child during her stays with him.  The court ordered defendant to pay temporary support of his minor child in Plaintiff County’s action against defendant for child support. Defendant Richard Worrell (father) appeals from the trial court’s order.

]]>

Issues:

Whether the County had right to institute an independent proceeding?
Whether the defendant is “absent” or “noncustodial” parent within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 11350?
Whether an offset for funds spent on the defendant’s daughter’s care can be granted to him?
Whether the trial court failed to consider wife’s earning capacity?

Discussion:

This court held that the pendency of a family law action did not deprive a county of standing to pursue a support order in an independent action. Father simply ignored the unequivocal holding in County of El Dorado. His argument has no merit in this.  This court held that the language contained in section 11457 indicates that an absent parent is a noncustodial parent. Continued absence’ exists when the nature of the absence is such as either to interrupt or to terminate the parent’s functioning as a provider of maintenance, physical care, or guidance for the child, and the known or indefinite duration of the absence precludes counting on the parent’s performance of the function of planning for the present support or care of the child. If these conditions exist, the parent may be absent for any reason, and may have left only recently or some time previously. Since the focus of the statute authorizing AFDC benefits was “continued absence,” this court concluded that the statute authorizing recoupment of benefits makes the “noncustodial” parent the parent whose absence triggers the eligibility for AFDC. Accordingly as per the record, it held that the father is a “noncustodial” parent within the meaning of section 11350.  This court concludes that father is not entitled to an offset for the support and maintenance of the child while in his physical custody.  The court held that there was no indication that the court did not consider the mother’s earning capacity if in fact there was such evidence. There was simply an insufficient record for the court to review; there was no reporter’s transcript.

Conclusion:

This court affirmed the decision of the trial court against defendant father because Plaintiff County had standing to pursue the independent temporary child support order. The court noted that defendant was a “noncustodial” parent, who was not entitled to an offset for the support of the child while in his custody, and there was no indication that the trial court did not consider the mother’s earning capacity in its award.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content