In the Marriage of Gigliotti, which appears to be still good law as well as Family Code Section 4062. This case decision and statute would not be enabling in regard to your ex’s continued contribution to travel expenses. Could there be some other different variations in theory to present the claim, possible, not probable. The normal go on this is where people in your ex’s situation obtain contribution from individuals like yourself and where you voluntarily move out of the area and you are the reason for increased travel expenses and on that basis in most to the best I van recall negotiated resolutions and settlements you agree to pay the travel costs or a portion based on the fact that you are removing the child from the area where you and the ex resided and child resided.
If you have found this information helpful, please let the attorney know by marking best answer. Thank you. This participating Attorney does not warrant any information provided, nor are we creating an Attorney-Client relationship by providing said information to you on this site. Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute, offer, induce, promise, or contract of any kind. The content provided is presented as a courtesy to be used only for informational purposes and is not represented to be error free. The Law Offices of John N. Kitta makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to its answer to inquiries, and such representations and warranties are being expressly disclaimed. Given limited facts, we are attempting to share relevant information concerning this area of the law as a public service.
Look up CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE 4062. There is a column in the Dissomaster calculation that enables a "Hardship" for Travel Expenses. It is discretionary by the court. So yes... the Judge CAN order you to contribute toward the transportation expenses (they have the authority to do so, but it's up to the Judge to decide if he/she will/won't.)
Imputing income: This, too is discretionary. It depends on WHY you're a stay at home mom. Did you get laid off? Did you quit your job? IF you quit your job so you can be supported by your new husband & be a stay-at-home mom, then the court has the ability to impute income based on your new husband's earnings to the extent that they satisfy your monthly living expenses. Most courts will not impute more than your last earnings prior to quitting your job. This is a very tricky area because your ex also has the burden of proving a) That you have the ABILITY to work full time and b) the OPPORTUNITY to work full time. If you can establish that you've applied for jobs to no avail, then that rebuts his contention. To impute income, though, he would have to prove those factors: a - you didn't quit your job; b) you have the ability to work full time; c) you have the opportunity. Also... a good argument you can make is that the cost of daycare to pay someone to watch your children doesn't justify the income you earn. Now... if your last income was significant enough, that argument won't fly. But if you earned less than say $10/hour, for example... it may fly.
So there are a variety of factors that we Attorneys would need to know before we could advise you thoroughly.
This is a general answer and does not constitute legal advice. By answering this question, I am not creating an attorney/client relationship, and no such relationship will be created unless a representation agreement is signed by both you and me.
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about child custody law.