Opinion
C097057
09-19-2023
STEPHANIE HENGL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS DAVIES-CALAGNA, Defendant and Appellant; PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SDR0048240
MAURO, J.
The trial court determined the income of Nicholas Davies-Calagna and Stephanie Hengl for the purpose of calculating child support. It also directed Nicholas to reimburse Stephanie $1,186 for work-related childcare expenses.
Nicholas appeals the order, claiming (1) there is no evidence the childcare expenses were work related, and (2) the trial court should have set Stephanie's income at $6,000 per month.
Because we cannot discern, on this record, how the trial court determined the amount of the childcare expense order, we will reverse the portion of the trial court's order pertaining to the childcare expenses, remand that portion for recalculation and/or clarification, and otherwise affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
Nicholas and Stephanie have one minor child together. A 2019 child support order required Stephanie to pay $80 in monthly child support to Nicholas. In November 2021, Stephanie sought to modify child support; among other things, she asked that Nicholas reimburse her for half the childcare expenses incurred between July 1, 2020, and May 1, 2021. Nicholas opposed the request.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and both parties appeared in propria persona. Stephanie testified that beginning in October 2018, she worked for California Sleep Solutions, making approximately $4,000 a month. But she went on disability leave in October 2020 and resigned in January 2021, asserting a hostile work environment. Stephanie was unemployed at the time of the evidentiary hearing; her husband Kevin owned and operated a construction business.
In support of her claim for childcare expenses, Stephanie submitted a "Family Fee Statement" prepared by the Placer County Office of Education (the statement). Stephanie said the statement identified the amount of time the child was in childcare when she and/or Nicholas were working. The statement included fees billed between July 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 totaling $4,342. The fees billed in July 2020 and August 2020 were $398 each month, but those fees were credited back to the account. From September 2020 to May 2021, the monthly fees were $394. According to the statement, between September 2020 and May 2021, Stephanie paid $3,158 in fees and owed $388.
Stephanie testified that she went on disability just as the COVID-19 quarantine ended. The child was home during quarantine, and when he returned to kindergarten the days were shortened, so Stephanie kept him in the childcare program.
Kevin testified that Stephanie did not work for his construction business and she had no ownership interest in it. Kevin was the sole earner for their family and the only borrower on the mortgage for their home.
Nicholas argued Stephanie was working for the business and lying about her income. In support of his argument, he submitted a 2018 Income and Expense Declaration indicating Stephanie worked for the business earning $2,500 a month. Nicholas also submitted a request Stephanie made on social media for "someone to help my husband next week for multiple days doing some demo and framing," a title document listing Stephanie as a co-borrower on her home with Kevin, and a civil judgment against the business that named Stephanie as an individual.
The trial court issued a written decision on September 16, 2022. The trial court found that Stephanie's decision to resign from California Sleep Solutions was voluntary but necessary for her health. It found she had no direct earnings from the construction business and the evidence was insufficient to show that she had the ability and opportunity to earn at the same level she had previously earned. But the trial court found Stephanie had the ability and opportunity to earn minimum wage. After accounting for her unemployment benefits, the trial court imputed income to Stephanie in the amount of $2,339 per month from December 1, 2021 to August 1, 2022, and $2,426 per month beginning August 1, 2022. The Department of Child Support Services would calculate the amount of child support.
As for the asserted childcare expenses, the trial court found the evidence insufficient to support the total amount claimed by Stephanie. But it found Nicholas owed Stephanie $1,186 as his share of work-related childcare expenses.
DISCUSSION
I
Nicholas contends there is no evidence the childcare expenses were work related. Although the trial court determined Nicholas owed Stephanie $1,186 as his share of work-related childcare expenses, we cannot discern how it reached that number.
"In addition to basic child support established by the guideline formula in [Family Code] section 4055, subdivision (a), a trial court must order certain other costs as additional support." (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 32.) Those costs are referred to as mandatory add-ons, and they include child care costs related to employment. (Fam. Code, § 4062, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court must award the expenses if they exist, and the expenses generally are apportioned one-half to each parent unless either parent requests a different apportionment. (Fam. Code, § 4061, subd. (a).)
We review the trial court's decision regarding mandatory add-ons for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747, 760-761.) "We determine 'whether the court's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.' [Citation.] We do not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court but determine only if any judge reasonably could have made such an order." (Id. at p. 753.)
Stephanie asked that Nicholas reimburse her for one half of the work-related childcare expenses she incurred between July 2020 and May 2021. The trial court found Stephanie failed to support her claim for that entire time period but ordered Nicholas to reimburse Stephanie $1,186 for his share of work-related childcare expenses. However, the trial court did not explain its calculations, and we cannot, on this record, determine the trial court's calculation method. Accordingly, we will reverse that portion of the order and remand that portion for recalculation and/or clarification.
II
Nicholas next contends the trial court should have set Stephanie's income at $6,000 per month because she voluntarily quit her job to work for the construction business. The record does not support Nicholas's contention.
Stephanie testified that she resigned from California Sleep Solutions because of a hostile work environment. The trial court found her testimony credible and concluded she was, essentially, forced to resign to preserve her health. Although Nicholas insisted Stephanie was working for the construction business earning $6,000 a month, he offered no admissible evidence to support that claim and Stephanie testified it was not true. Resolution of the dispute required a credibility determination and the trial court found Stephanie more credible. We will not second guess that determination. (In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 481, 500.)
DISPOSITION
The portion of the trial court's September 16, 2022 order pertaining to work-related childcare expenses is reversed, and that portion of the order is remanded for recalculation and/or clarification. The order is otherwise affirmed. The parties shall each bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
We concur: ROBIE, Acting P.J., BOULWARE EURIE, J.