- 19 -
Petitioners contend that respondent erroneously relied on
the fact that James Little had primary physical custody of
Christina when he and petitioner agreed to the stipulation re
modification of judgment of dissolution. Petitioners argue that
this was an error because the obligation to pay child support in
California does not always depend on who has primary physical
custody if the noncustodial spouse lacked resources to adequately
care for the child. See In re Marriage of Katz, 201 Cal. App. 3d
1029, 1038-1039 (1988). We disagree that we may not consider the
fact that James Little had primary physical custody of Christina.
In California, a parent generally meets his or her child support
obligation by maintaining custody of the child. In re Marriage
of Rasmussen, 155 Cal. App. 3d 805, 812 (1984). Petitioner has
not shown that she lacked resources to adequately care for
Christina similar to the example given by the court in In re
Marriage of Katz, supra. The fact that James Little had physical
custody is not dispositive, but we believe it is relevant to
deciding whether he and petitioner intended the payments at issue
to be child support.
Petitioners contend the stipulation re modification of
judgment of dissolution must be construed against James Little
because his advisers drafted it. Cal. Civil Code sec. 1654
(West 1985); 2 Restatement, Contracts 2d, sec. 206 (1981); 4
Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts, sec. 621 (3d ed.
1961). We disagree. An agreement is construed against its
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011