Lopez v. Solis CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: E083828
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 2/7/25 Lopez v. Solis CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAVID LOPEZ,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E083828

v. (Super.Ct.No. FLHE2300992)

SANJEL SOLIS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kristi Kirk, Judge.

Affirmed.

Westover Law Group and Andrew L. Westover for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Sanjel Solis challenges an order awarding her retroactive child support, arguing

that the trial court erred by not extending the award to an earlier date. We affirm.

1 BACKGROUND

In March 2023, David Lopez filed a petition to determine the parentage of Solis’s

daughter, Sky S., who was born in 2011. Lopez requested joint legal custody and

visitation if he was found to be Sky’s father. Solis opposed the petition, contending that

Lopez was not Sky’s father.

According to the superior court docket, the trial court awarded Solis sole legal and

physical custody of Sky on August 30, 2023, and ordered therapeutic contact between

Sky and Lopez. The record on appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript of that

hearing.

In September 2023, Lopez signed Judicial Council Forms, form FL-235

(Advisement and Waiver of Rights Re: Determination of Parental Relationship) and

acknowledged: “I understand that if I admit that I am the parent of the children in this

action that those children will be my children for legal purposes,” including child

support. He also acknowledged: “I understand that I am admitting that I am the parent of

the children named in the stipulation . . . .”

In February 2024, Solis filed a request for child support for Sky from Lopez in the

child support guideline amount of $832 per month. Solis requested that the court order

the award retroactive under Family Code section 4009 to March 7, 2023, when Lopez

filed the initial pleading in the action. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Family

Code.) Lopez did “not oppose paying California guideline child support to [Solis]

retroactive to the date when the Request for Order was filed on February 1, 2024.”

2 The court held a hearing on Solis’s request for child support in April 2024. Lopez

argued that it was disingenuous for Solis to request that child support be awarded

retroactive to the date that he filed the petition to determine paternity, given that Solis

challenged Lopez’s paternity. Solis argued that section 4009 required the court to order

the award retroactive to the date that Lopez initiated the proceeding.

The court found the child support order to be an original order of child support

under section 4009 and ordered Lopez to pay Solis child support in the amount of $824

per month. The court ordered the award retroactive to August 30, 2023, because that was

when Lopez’s paternity was established.

DISCUSSION

Solis argues that the trial court erred by not awarding child support retroactive to

the date that Lopez filed the petition to determine paternity. We are not persuaded.

Section 4009 provides: “An original order for child support may be made

retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading. If the

parent ordered to pay support was not served with the petition, complaint, or other initial

pleading within 90 days after filing and the court finds that the parent was not

intentionally evading service, the child support order shall be effective no earlier than the

date of service.” We independently review issues of statutory interpretation. (In re

Marriage of Cady & Gamick (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 379, 388.) “‘Our fundamental task

in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the

law’s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and

3 commonsense meaning.’” (Ibid.) “If there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the

language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and we need not resort

to legislative history to determine the statute’s true meaning.” (People v. Cochran (2002)

28 Cal.4th 396, 400-401 (Cochran).) Instead, “‘the plain meaning of the statute

governs.’” (In re Marriage of Barth (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 363, 373 (Barth).)

Solis’s sole argument on appeal is that section 4009 requires that an original child

support award “be made retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other

initial pleading.” (§ 4009.) She contends that the argument is supported by the

legislative history of amendments made effective January 1, 2020. (See Stats. 1999, ch.

653, § 8.) The argument lacks merit.

Section 4009 provides that an original award of child support “may be made

retroactive to the date of filing the petition, complaint, or other initial pleading.” (Italics

added.) Section 12 specifies that the use of “‘may’” in the Family Code “is permissive”

while the use of “‘[s]hall’ is mandatory.” The plain language of section 4009 thus allows

the trial court to award child support retroactively “to the date of filing the petition,

complaint, or other initial pleading” but does not require it to make the award retroactive

to any of those dates. (§ 4009.) The interpretation is supported by the second sentence in

section 4009, which provides that if the initial pleading is not served within 90 days and

there is no evidence that the parent being ordered to pay child support intentionally

evaded service, then the award of child support “shall be effective no earlier than the date

of service.” (Ibid.) “[N]o earlier than” means that the date of service operates as a limit

4 on the retroactivity of the award, and the court has discretion to make the award

retroactive to a later date. (Ibid.) Solis does not explain why the Legislature would give

the court discretion to set a later retroactivity date in the second sentence of section 4009

but eliminate such discretion in the first sentence, and we can think of no reason for such

differential treatment. The more reasonable interpretation of the statute is that both

sentences of section 4009 set a limit on retroactivity but give the court discretion to

choose a later date. (See Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [“the ‘plain

meaning’ rule does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a

statute comports with its purpose or whether such a construction of one provision is

consistent with other provisions of the statute”].)

Because the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we presume that “‘the

Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs.’” (Barth,

supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 373.) We accordingly need not analyze the legislative

history of the 2020 amendments in order to ascertain the Legislature’s intent. (Cochran,

supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 400-401; Barth, at p. 373.) Under the plain language of section

4009, the trial court was not required to award Solis child support retroactive to the date

that Lopez petitioned for paternity.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err by not

awarding Solis child support retroactive to the date that Lopez initiated the proceeding.

5 DISPOSITION

The April 25, 2024, order awarding child support is affirmed. Respondent shall

recover his costs of appeal, if any.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.