BILL NUMBER: AB 2393 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 29, 2012
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Davis
FEBRUARY 24, 2012
An act to amend Section 13879.80 of the Penal Code,
relating to law enforcement. An act to amend Section
4055 of the Family Code, relating to child support.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2393, as amended, Davis. Law enforcement:
drug-endangered children. Family law: child support
formula.
Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are responsible
for supporting the child. Existing law establishes statewide uniform
guidelines for calculating court-ordered child support. These
guidelines provide that if an obligor's net disposable monthly income
is less than $1,000, there is a rebuttable presumption that the
obligor is entitled to a low-income adjustment that reduces the child
support amount. Under existing law, this presumption may be rebutted
by evidence that applying the low-income adjustment would be unjust
and inappropriate.
This bill would increase the net disposable income threshold to
$1,500 per month and require this threshold to be adjusted annually
for cost of living increases. The bill would require the Judicial
Council, on March 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, to determine the
adjustment amount based on the change in the annual California
Consumer Price Index, as specified.
Existing law encourages every law enforcement and social services
agency to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and
standards for their response to narcotics crime scenes where a child
is present or where there is evidence that a child lives, by January
1, 2005.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no
yes . State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 4055 of the Family
Code is amended to read:
4055. (a) The statewide uniform guideline for determining child
support orders is as follows: CS = K HN -- (H%)(TN)].
(b) (1) The components of the formula are as follows:
(A) CS = child support amount.
(B) K = amount of both parents' income to be allocated for child
support as set forth in paragraph (3).
(C) HN = high earner's net monthly disposable income.
(D) H% = approximate percentage of time that the high earner has
or will have primary physical responsibility for the children
compared to the other parent. In cases in which parents have
different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals
the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner
parent spends with each child.
(E) TN = total net monthly disposable income of both parties.
(2) To compute net disposable income, see Section 4059.
(3) K (amount of both parents' income allocated for child support)
equals one plus H% (if H% is less than or equal to 50 percent) or
two minus H% (if H% is greater than 50 percent) times the following
fraction:
Total Net
Disposable
Income Per Month K
$0-800 0.20 + TN/16,000
$801-6,666 0.25
$6,667-10,000 0.10 + 1,000/TN
Over $10,000 0.12 + 800/TN
For example, if H% equals 20 percent and the total monthly net
disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (1 + 0.20) � 0.25, or
0.30. If H% equals 80 percent and the total monthly net disposable
income of the parents is $1,000, K = (2 -- 0.80) � 0.25, or 0.30.
(4) For more than one child, multiply CS by:
2 children 1.6
3 children 2
4 children 2.3
5 children 2.5
6 children 2.625
7 children 2.75
8 children 2.813
9 children 2.844
10 children 2.86
(5) If the amount calculated under the formula results in a
positive number, the higher earner shall pay that amount to the lower
earner. If the amount calculated under the formula results in a
negative number, the lower earner shall pay the absolute value of
that amount to the higher earner.
(6) In any default proceeding where proof is by affidavit pursuant
to Section 2336, or in any proceeding for child support in which a
party fails to appear after being duly noticed, H% shall be set at
zero in the formula if the noncustodial parent is the higher earner
or at 100 if the custodial parent is the higher earner, where there
is no evidence presented demonstrating the percentage of time that
the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the
children. H% shall not be set as described above if the moving party
in a default proceeding is the noncustodial parent or if the party
who fails to appear after being duly noticed is the custodial parent.
A statement by the party who is not in default as to the percentage
of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical
responsibility for the children shall be deemed sufficient evidence.
(7) In all cases in which the net disposable income per month of
the obligor is less than one thousand five hundred dollars
($1,000) ($1,500) , adjusted
annually for cost of living increases, there shall be a
rebuttable presumption that the obligor is entitled to a low-income
adjustment. On March 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the
Judicial Council shall determine the amount of the net disposable
income adjustment based on the change in the annual California
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the
California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Statistics. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing
that the application of the low-income adjustment would be unjust
and inappropriate in the particular case. In determining whether the
presumption is rebutted, the court shall consider the principles
provided in Section 4053, and the impact of the contemplated
adjustment on the respective net incomes of the obligor and the
obligee. The low-income adjustment shall reduce the child support
amount otherwise determined under this section by an amount that is
no greater than the amount calculated by multiplying the child
support amount otherwise determined under this section by a fraction,
the numerator of which is 1,000 1,500
minus the obligor's net disposable income per month, and the
denominator of which is 1,000. 1,500.
(8) Unless the court orders otherwise, the order for child support
shall allocate the support amount so that the amount of support for
the youngest child is the amount of support for one child, and the
amount for the next youngest child is the difference between that
amount and the amount for two children, with similar allocations for
additional children. However, this paragraph does not apply to cases
in which there are different time-sharing arrangements for different
children or where the court determines that the allocation would be
inappropriate in the particular case.
(c) If a court uses a computer to calculate the child support
order, the computer program shall not automatically default
affirmatively or negatively on whether a low-income adjustment is to
be applied. If the low-income adjustment is applied, the computer
program shall not provide the amount of the low-income adjustment.
Instead, the computer program shall ask the user whether or not to
apply the low-income adjustment, and if answered affirmatively, the
computer program shall provide the range of the adjustment permitted
by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b).
SECTION 1. Section 13879.80 of the Penal Code
is amended to read:
13879.80. (a) Every law enforcement and social services agency in
this state is encouraged to develop, adopt, and implement written
policies and standards for their response to narcotics crime scenes
where a child is either immediately present or where there is
evidence that a child lives, by January 1, 2005. These policies shall
reflect the fact that exposing a child to the manufacturing,
trafficking, and the use of narcotics is criminal conduct, and that a
response coordinated by law enforcement and social services agencies
is essential to the child's health and welfare.
(b) The needs of a drug endangered child are best served with
written policies encouraging the arrest of an individual for child
endangerment where there is probable cause that an offense has been
committed coordinated with an appropriate investigation of the child'
s welfare by child protective agencies. Protocols that encourage a
dependency investigation contemporaneous with a law enforcement
investigation at a narcotics crime scene, when appropriate, are
consistent with a child's best interest.