California Family Code § 4057: Rebuttable Presumption & Exceptions to Guideline

Plain-Language Summary

Family Code § 4057 says the statewide guideline amount (calculated under § 4055) is presumed correct, but that presumption can be rebutted if applying the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case—consistent with the policy principles in § 4053—and if the court states the required § 4056(a) findings. Typical rebuttal scenarios include: (1) a stipulation approved under § 4065, (2) a deferred sale of the family home where the rental value exceeds carrying costs, (3) an extraordinarily high income earner whose guideline result would exceed the children’s needs, (4) situations where a party isn’t contributing to the children’s needs commensurate with that party’s custodial time, (5) a low-income obligor for whom the guideline amount (after the § 4055 low-income adjustment) would still consume more than 50% of that parent’s net disposable income, and (6) other special circumstances (different timeshares for siblings, large housing-cost disparities with equal timeshare, special medical/other needs, or a child with more than two legal parents). Section 4057 also authorizes courts to coordinate when the same parent is paying support in multiple cases.

Real-World Examples

• Extraordinarily high income earner: Guideline produces a very large number; the payor argues the amount exceeds the child’s needs. The court may go below guideline only with admissible evidence of the children’s needs, proper findings under § 4056(a), and consistency with § 4053’s policies.
• Low-income safeguard: After applying the § 4055 low-income adjustment, if support would still be more than 50% of the obligor’s net (as defined in § 4059), the court may reduce the order so it does not exceed that 50% threshold.
• Deferred sale of home: If the children remain in the family residence and its rental value exceeds mortgage/insurance/taxes, the court can adjust support by no more than that excess.
• Time-share vs. contribution mismatch: A parent with significant custodial time but minimal spending on the children can trigger a deviation so support reflects actual contributions to the children’s needs.
• Special circumstances: Different timeshares for siblings, equal timeshare with starkly different housing costs, special medical needs, or a child with more than two parents may justify adjustments up or down.
• Multiple support cases: If a parent owes support in several matters, the court can coordinate hearings, issue a temporary order, and consider whether a deviation is needed to fairly allocate income across cases.

Published Case Law on § 4057

• In re Marriage of Cheriton (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269 – Guideline is mandatory; deviations are narrow and must honor § 4053 policies. Discusses § 4057(b)(3): in high-income cases, “needs” are assessed in light of the parents’ station in life; children share in the wealth. The court criticized failing to run guideline and failing to tether any deviation to statutory findings.
• In re Marriage of Hubner (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175 – In a high-income dispute, the parent seeking a downward deviation bears the burden to show guideline exceeds the child’s needs; courts must first compute guideline on a reliable record of actual income and make § 4056 findings if departing.
• In re Marriage of Macilwaine (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 514 – Reverses a cap tied to the high-earner exception. Clarifies “needs” analysis under § 4057(b)(3), requires proper § 4056(a) findings, and treats available stock-option compensation as income when calculating guideline.
• Johnson v. Superior Court (Tate) (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 68 – High-earner discovery: a court can’t meaningfully evaluate a § 4057(b)(3) deviation without credible income evidence; needs are measured against the standard of living enabled by the payor’s income, not lifestyle anecdotes.
• S.P. v. F.G. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 921 – Explains “needs” in high-income settings and when (and how) below-guideline awards may be justified consistent with § 4053 and § 4057.
• In re Marriage of Cryer (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 – Affirms a below-guideline modification in unusual facts; underscores that deviations must further the child’s best interests and be supported by proper findings rather than earmarking or “trust” mechanisms.

Full Text of California Family Code § 4057

(a) The amount of child support established by the formula provided in subdivision (a) of Section 4055 is presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be ordered.

(b) The presumption of subdivision (a) is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case, consistent with the principles set forth in Section 4053, because one or more of the following factors is found to be applicable by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court states in writing or on the record the information required in subdivision (a) of Section 4056:

1. The parties have stipulated to a different amount of child support under subdivision (a) of Section 4065.
2. The sale of the family residence is deferred pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 3800) of Part 1 and the rental value of the family residence where the children reside exceeds the mortgage payments, homeowner’s insurance, and property taxes. The amount of any adjustment pursuant to this paragraph shall not be greater than the excess amount.
3. The parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children.
4. A party is not contributing to the needs of the children at a level commensurate with that party’s custodial time.
5. A support obligor qualifies for the low-income adjustment pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 4055 and the amount of child support established by the formula exceeds 50 percent of the support obligor’s net disposable income as defined in Section 4059 after application of the low-income adjustment. The amount of any adjustment pursuant to this paragraph shall not be greater than the amount exceeding 50 percent of the support obligor’s net disposable income.
6. Application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances in the particular case. These special circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following:
   1. Cases in which the parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children.
   2. Cases in which both parents have substantially equal time-sharing of the children and one parent has a much lower or higher percentage of income used for housing than the other parent.
   3. Cases in which the children have special medical or other needs that could require child support that would be greater than the formula amount.
   4. Cases in which a child is found to have more than two parents.

(c) If the court is made aware that a parent is subject to multiple court orders to pay child support arising from a different case or cases, the court may take steps to determine how to allocate the parent’s income and support obligation appropriately across the cases. A court that continues a hearing based on a party’s representation that it will file an appropriate request to modify support in a related case may issue a temporary support order.

(d) This section shall be operative September 1, 2024.

(Repealed (in Sec. 4) and added by Stats. 2023, Ch. 213, Sec. 3 (SB 343). Effective January 1, 2024; operative September 1, 2024.)

*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.