CAMERON CHRISTIE, ) Case Number: FDI-16-786273
)
)
Petitioner ) Hearing Date: February 20, 2018
)
VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
MIKAELA BOCK, ) Department: 404
)
Respondent ) Presiding: RICHARD C. DARWIN
)
)

REQUEST FOR ORDER -REIMBURSEMENT RE SHARED CHILD CARE EXPENSES AS REQUIRED PER OUR FILED JUDGMENT/MSA

TENTATIVE RULING

Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the court makes the following findings and orders.

Mother’s request for an order that Father reimburse her for the child care costs in the amount of $7,398 is granted. The child care costs related to Mother’s education and training as an attorney are an add-on expense. Such child care costs appear in the “add-on” section in the marital settlement agreement, which provides that they shall be divided equally. This provision is consistent with FC section 4061 and 4062. Father has not demonstrated that a different apportionment of the childcare expenses would be fair. In addition, it does not follow from the terms of the marital settlement agreement, and Family Code section 4061 does not condition the equal division of child care costs on the mutual approval of the parties.

Mother’s attorney fees request is granted in the amount of $5,000. Mother has shown that Father discouraged settlement. Mother had attempted to work with Father on the issue of reimbursement for a period of 5 months with no success. Such failure to comply with the terms of the MSA occurred a mere 1-2 months after the MSA was entered, and evolved into several different arguments on Father’s part as to why he shouldn’t have to pay an equal share. In addition, although Father suggested that the parties pursue mediation pursuant to section 17.6 of the MSA, his suggestions were accompanied by the complaint that it would cost the parties a lot of money to mediate, which appears intended to discourage and stall the settlement process. Mother also produced evidence which showed that Father flatly refused Mother’s requests, on several occasions, that Father pay his share and comply with the parties’ MSA.

Father’s actions—at the onset of the parties MSA and co-parenting relationship–appear to foreshadow a possible pattern of non-compliance with the agreement, frustration of settlement, and dispute between the parties, which should be discouraged. Finally, an award of attorney’s fees as sanctions would not place an unreasonable financial burden on Father as he has significant income and assets.

Father’s objection to, and motion to strike portions of Mother’s responsive declaration, is denied