Many people receiving child support do not work or have not worked in a long time. The person paying child support wants the recipient to get a job so they have income and support goes down. Seek work orders are allowed for in spousal support, but not for child support (sometimes there is cross over, but if the only issue is child support there is no legal provision in California for a seek work order).
If the person paying support defaults on payments, Family Code section 4505 allows the Court to order that person to seek work. (See also Barron v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 293, and Monterey County v. Banuelos (2000) 82 Cal.app.4th 1299.) An order that the payor of child support seek work is clearly allowed by California law. The reverse does not appear to be true.
Sacramento County frequently orders the recipient of child support to seek work. There is, however, no statutory or case law authority for the Court to make that order. If the Legislature has not expressly granted the Court authority, and no appellate court has interpreted the law to say such an order is allowed, then there is no legal basis for the Court have make an order.
Family Code section 3558 allows for the Court to order job assistance or job training, but it does not state the that Court can issue a seek work order.
The Civil Liability for Support Act, which is found in Family Code section 4400 allows for an adult child to be ordered to support elderly or destitute parents, and the recipient of support can be ordered to seek work. But that does not pertain to child support.
Without a way to pursue a seek work order, one can request the court to order a vocational evaluation, order job training for rehabilitation. These other orders are alternatives, and allowed for by California law, but are different from an order to seek work. Employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics can be helpful.
Family Code section 3600 and some case law allow the court DISCRETION to deviate from the California child support guideline if someone is cohabitating. The argument is if someone is cohabitating there is a diminished need for support. (Steven W. v. Matthew S. (1995) 33 Cal.app.4th 1108 defines cohabitation) Keep in mind, this argument is discretionary so different judicial officers could make different decisions.
James Moore handles family law and child support cases in Placer County, California and surrounding areas. This post is meant to be a discussion of a legal topic and not legal advice for a particular legal situation. If you have a child support issue, you should seek legal advice from an attorney.
