California Family Code § 92: Family Support

Plain-Language Summary

Family Code § 92 defines “family support” as a combined support arrangement that covers both child support and spousal support in one overall sum. In simple terms, instead of specifying separate amounts for child support and for spousal support, a family support order or agreement bundles them together into a single payment. This means the paying party (often a higher-earning spouse or parent) pays one unified amount intended to meet both the children’s needs and the other spouse’s needs, without labeling how much of it is for the children versus the spouse.

This combined approach can be used as an alternative to having distinct child support and alimony orders. One potential benefit of family support is simplicity – it provides one consistent payment to the supported party, which can be easier to manage than two separate payments. It may also offer flexibility for the family’s finances. In some cases, parties choose a family support arrangement to maximize tax or financial advantages. (Historically, when spousal support was tax-deductible to the payer and taxable to the recipient, structuring support as “family support” could allow the entire payment to be treated like alimony for tax purposes. This could benefit both sides if the payer was in a higher tax bracket and the recipient in a lower bracket. However, U.S. tax laws changed in 2019 to end the deduction for new spousal support orders, so newer family support agreements no longer carry the same federal tax benefit.)

It’s important to understand that a family support order carries the characteristics of both child and spousal support. For example, because child support is always modifiable to serve a child’s best interests, a family support amount (which includes child support) remains subject to court modification just like a regular child support order. The court will still use the statewide child support guidelines as a reference in approving or modifying a family support amount. Additionally, enforcement of a family support order is usually handled in the same manner as child support – for instance, the local child support agency can assist in collecting family support, and the payment can be automatically withheld from wages, etc.

One potential downside of a combined family support order is the lack of automatic adjustment when circumstances change. Because the order doesn’t specify what portion is “for child” vs “for spouse,” it may be unclear what should happen when the child turns 18 or graduates high school (when regular child support would ordinarily terminate). The paying parent cannot simply stop or reduce payments on their own once a child becomes an adult – since the order is a single sum, they must go back to court to modify the family support amount. In practice, courts addressing family support will look at the intent of the parties and the language of the judgment. If it’s evident that the combined support was meant to include child support, the court may expect the payor to seek a modification when the child is no longer eligible, rather than just unilaterally reducing the payment. Failing to formally adjust the order can lead to misunderstandings or even legal disputes over arrears (back payments).

In summary, Family Code § 92’s concept of family support is a tool that divorcing or separating parents can use to streamline support obligations. It can provide a stable, single payment that covers all support duties, but it requires careful drafting and awareness of future changes. Parents considering a family support arrangement should be mindful of how it will operate over time – for example, whether it should decrease when a child grows up, and how to enforce or modify the order down the road. Because of the complexities (especially regarding tax implications and future modifications), it’s often recommended to consult a family law attorney or financial advisor when deciding to use a family support order.

Real-World Examples

• Combined support with tax planning: Imagine a divorcing couple where one spouse has a much higher income. They agree that instead of paying $800 per month in child support and $700 per month in spousal support, the higher-earning spouse will pay $1,500 per month in family support. Under their agreement, the entire $1,500 is a single obligation covering both the children’s expenses and spousal support for the other parent. In the past (before 2019), treating it as family support could allow the payor to deduct the whole $1,500 on their taxes as alimony (since it wasn’t labeled separately as child support), and the recipient would report it as income. This could result in a net tax benefit, potentially enabling the higher earner to comfortably pay a bit more support knowing they get a tax break, which in turn gives the recipient more money overall. However, both parties would need to ensure the agreement was structured correctly (for example, the payments couldn’t step down when each child turned 18, or the IRS would consider part of it disguised child support). (Note: Current law has changed federal tax treatment of alimony for new orders, so today this tax-driven scenario only applies to older agreements. But it illustrates why some couples set up unallocated family support in the first place.)
• Child turns 18 – what happens to family support? Consider a court order that requires a father to pay $2,000 per month in family support to the mother, covering her support and their one child’s support together. This continues for several years. When the child turns 18 and graduates high school, the father might assume he can cut the payment in half or stop the portion for the child. But because the order doesn’t separate child support from spousal support, he is technically still obligated to pay the full $2,000 until the court changes the order. In one real case, a parent in this situation stopped paying the “child’s share” once the child became an adult, and years later the other parent demanded tens of thousands in back payments. The dispute went to court, where the judges examined the original agreement. They found evidence that both parents had intended the support to end when the child grew up, so the court ruled that no arrears were owed for the period after the child’s majority. The lesson is that if you have a family support order and a child is aging out, it’s safest to return to court for a formal modification. Otherwise, you risk a misunderstanding: one party may believe the obligation automatically changed, while the other may later claim unpaid support.
• Forgiving past-due support isn’t so simple: Family support orders are legally enforceable just like any other support order, and California law is very strict that accrued support payments (amounts that became due in the past) cannot just be waived or forgiven by a private agreement. For example, suppose a parent falls behind on a family support obligation, owing a large sum in arrears. The parents privately agree that the supported spouse will forgive the debt if a smaller lump-sum is paid and the monthly amount is reduced going forward. They sign a deal to that effect. Later, the supported spouse gets second thoughts (or the deal falls apart) and brings the issue to court. In a scenario like this, the court is likely to invalidate the agreement to waive the arrears. California courts have held that you cannot retroactively cancel child support or family support that has already come due. In addition, if the local child support agency is involved in enforcing the support (for example, if the family received public assistance or sought help from the Department of Child Support Services), then that agency must approve any stipulated agreement to compromise or terminate support. In one case, a father’s family support payments were significantly in arrears (over $200,000). He and his ex-wife signed a stipulation to permanently terminate the support and forgive the debt if he paid a smaller amount upfront. The trial court initially approved it, but later set it aside when it was revealed that the agreement hadn’t been signed by the county child support agency and that the father had misrepresented his finances. The result: the large arrears balance was reinstated, and the father was still on the hook for the full past-due amount. This example shows that family support isn’t easily bargained away – once support money is owed, the law treats it like a debt that the child (or supported spouse) is entitled to, and courts will enforce that debt until it’s paid in full.

Published Case Law on § 92

• Smith v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) – In this case (unpublished opinion), a divorce judgment ordered the husband to pay a single family support amount of $1,500 per month for his ex-wife and their two children. The husband paid that amount until the older child turned 18, then he reduced payments (and stopped entirely when the younger child reached 18). About eight years later, the ex-wife went to court claiming over $160,000 in unpaid support, arguing that the full family support should have continued until modified by a court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that no arrears were owed. The court looked at the couple’s marital settlement agreement and found it was the parties’ mutual understanding that the support would end when the children became adults. In reaching this conclusion, the court allowed extrinsic evidence to interpret the ambiguity in the agreement. Smith illustrates that even though family support is unallocated, the parties’ intent and the context (such as a reference to standard child support termination at age 18) can determine how and when the support is supposed to end. It also serves as a warning: if you have a family support order and want to avoid disputes, make sure to formally adjust the order when circumstances change (like children aging out), rather than assuming it’s automatic.
• In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) – This published appellate decision involved a large amount of support arrears that accrued over many years. The ex-husband, who had moved overseas, owed both child support and spousal support arrearages exceeding $300,000. He later offered to pay the ex-wife about one-third of that amount as a “settlement” if she would forgive the rest. The ex-wife, desperate for funds, initially agreed and signed a settlement agreement to waive the remaining support. However, when only part of the money was paid and disputes arose, the matter ended up in California court. The Court of Appeal made it clear that past-due support cannot be waived or forgiven by agreement, unless perhaps there is a clear dispute about the amount owed. The court reaffirmed the rule that a judge has no authority to retroactively reduce or cancel accrued support obligations – those become a vested right of the payee (and, in the case of child support, a right of the child). In Sabine & Toshio M., the court invalidated the settlement that attempted to relinquish the arrears, holding that the agreement was unenforceable and that the full arrears remained due. This case is often cited for the principle that a parent cannot privately “bargain away” child support or family support that has already come due, and any attempt to do so (especially without court and agency approval) will not be upheld.
• Holland v. Alexholland (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) – A recent case (unpublished) demonstrates how strictly courts and agencies oversee family support agreements. Here, a father was paying $2,000 per month in family support but fell behind after the divorce. The parents reached a private deal in 2016 to lower the support to $500 and the mother agreed to waive all outstanding arrears (which were over $218,000) in exchange for a $20,000 lump sum. They even submitted a stipulated order to the court to memorialize this deal. However, because the local child support agency was involved in enforcing the support order, the law required the agency’s signature on any agreement altering child support or arrears. The agency (Los Angeles County CSS) did not sign off. The Court of Appeal later voided the stipulated order and reinstated the full $218,000 debt. The court noted that Family Code § 4065(c) mandates the child support agency’s approval for any stipulation when it is providing enforcement services, and here that requirement was not met. Moreover, consistent with cases like Sabine, the court observed that parties cannot simply waive non-aid support arrears without court approval. Holland is a cautionary tale that even if both parents agree to modify a family support obligation, they must follow proper legal procedures – including getting the child support agency’s consent if that agency is involved, and understanding that accrued arrears remain owing absent a lawful compromise.

Full Text of California Family Code § 92

§ 92. “Family support” means an agreement between the parents, or an order or judgment, that combines child support and spousal support without designating the amount to be paid for child support and the amount to be paid for spousal support.

(Enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. Operative January 1, 1994.)

*Nothing on this page should be considered legal advice. This is simply a summary of information found on the Internet. Use at your own risk. This information has not been evaluated by an attorney, and it may be incorrect or obsolete due to changes in the law.*