California Family Code § 3585: Child Support Provisions Are Separate and Severable

Plain-Language Summary

Explanation: California Family Code § 3585 ensures that any agreement between parents about child support is treated independently from other divorce terms like property division or spousal support. In simple terms, the child support part of a marital settlement or divorce agreement stands on its own and is not affected even if other parts of the agreement change or are invalidated. The statute explicitly says child support provisions are “separate and severable” from all other provisions, and any child support order based on the parents’ agreement is considered a court-ordered, law-imposed obligation. This means that once the court approves a child support agreement, that support becomes a legal duty enforceable by the court, not just a private contract between parents.

Practically, § 3585 protects a child’s right to be supported by making sure parents cannot bargain away or limit child support. Parents **cannot** agree to waive child support or prevent future modifications by the court – such attempts are void against public policy. In effect, the court always retains the power to adjust child support as needed for the child’s welfare, regardless of what the parents agreed. So, for example, even if parents agree that child support will be a fixed amount or non-modifiable, the law treats that support as if ordered by the court, and the court can still increase or decrease it later if circumstances change. Family Code § 3585 thus guarantees that child support remains focused on the child’s needs and ability of parents to pay, rather than being tied up with other divorce trade-offs.

Real-World Examples

Examples:

A divorcing couple’s settlement agreement gives the mother most of the marital property and, in exchange, states the father will pay no child support. Later, the mother faces financial hardship and seeks child support. Because of § 3585, the no-child-support clause cannot stop the court from ordering support – the parents cannot waive the child’s right to support. The child support provisions are independent of the property deal, so the court can impose a fair child support order despite the earlier agreement.
Parents agree in a divorce judgment that the father will pay a set amount of child support and that this amount is “non-modifiable.” Two years later, the father loses his job and cannot afford the payment. Under § 3585, the non-modifiable clause is ineffective. The father can ask the court to modify the support, and the court can reduce (or increase) the child support based on current incomes, because the law does not allow parents to limit the court’s power to adjust child support for the child’s best interests.
A marital settlement agreement is thrown out by a court because the husband concealed assets, invalidating the property division. However, the same agreement also included a child support arrangement. Under § 3585, that child support agreement is “severable” – it remains in force and enforceable by the court even though the rest of the contract was set aside. The parents must continue following the child support terms (until or unless the court modifies them), ensuring the children are still supported regardless of the dispute over other issues.

Published Case Law on § 3585

Case Law:

In re Marriage of Lambe & Meehan (1995) – One of the early cases affirming the principle later codified in § 3585. The Court of Appeal held that divorcing parents **cannot** agree to waive or limit child support or divest the court of jurisdiction over child support. Any such agreement is void against public policy, as “parents cannot waive or limit the right to child support” nor undermine the court’s power to protect the child’s welfare.
In re Marriage of Alter (2009) – This case involved an agreement setting a high child support amount with a provision that it could not be lowered (a non-modifiable “floor”). The appellate court cited Family Code § 3585 and related law to strike down that non-modification clause. The court explained that child support orders are always subject to the court’s power to modify, **even if** the parents intended to forbid changes. In other words, an agreement cannot prevent the court from lowering support if circumstances warrant – or raising it, for that matter – because the child support obligation is law-imposed and not purely contractual.
In re Marriage of Rosenfeld & Gross (2014) – This case (also known as Drescher v. Gross) dealt with an agreement for **adult** child support (college expenses for a child over 18) and whether it could be modified. Generally, § 3585 makes child support modifiable by the court, but here the Court of Appeal noted a nuance: parents may expressly agree to limit modifications of support for an adult child because such support isn’t mandated by law. In Rosenfeld & Gross, the parents had agreed to split college costs but did not explicitly say that obligation was non-modifiable. Because of that omission – and consistent with § 3585’s policy – the court ruled it *did* have jurisdiction to modify the college expense agreement. The takeaway is that while minor child support remains always modifiable by the court, an adult-child support agreement must clearly state any intent to restrict modification; otherwise, the court can adjust it later.

Full Text of California Family Code § 3585

Full Text:
“The provisions of an agreement between the parents for child support shall be deemed to be separate and severable from all other provisions of the agreement relating to property and support of either spouse. An order for child support based on the agreement shall be imposed by law and shall be made under the power of the court to order child support.”

Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified family law attorney.