- 12 -
In re Marriage of Leathers, 221 Cal. Rptr. 78, 81 (Ct. App. 1985)
(unpublished).
As it turned out, the practice of disguising child support
as alimony for tax purposes conflicted with California law
requiring adequate child support awards. Id.; see In re Marriage
of Ames, 130 Cal. Rptr. 435 (Ct. App. 1976). As the court in In
re Marriage of Leathers, supra at 81, continued:
Not surprisingly, the twain of good tax breaks and good
domestic relations law did not meet for long. In In re
Marriage of Ames [citation omitted], the Court of
Appeal for the Second District held that an inadequate
child support award could not be justified or sustained
by reference to a spousal support award allegedly
inflated to take advantage of federal tax laws on the
theory that the total income to the custodial spouse is
adequate for both the wife and the children. [Fn. ref.
omitted.] * * *
Ames’ affirmation of the need for an adequate,
separate child support award was incompatible with the
“Lester” taxing scheme. * * *
The California legislature responded in 1981 by creating the
concept of family support, which represents combined, but
unallocated, child support and spousal support. See 1981 Cal.
Stat. ch. 715, sec. 4 (adding former Cal. Civil Code sec.
4811(d)). The new California statutory provision effectively
skirted the holding of In re Marriage of Ames, supra, by
providing that a court need not make a separate order for child
support when the parties use the family support technique.10
10 That aspect of the 1981 legislation now appears in sec.
3586 of the California Family Code.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011