But I wonder if the real-world consequences will be counterproductive.
The first paragraph of the opinion cogently explains the holding (which, as always, readers appreciate):
"In In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. (2007) 153
Cal.App.4th 1203 (Sabine & Toshio), our colleagues in Division One
held that parents are precluded from contractually waiving child
support arrearages. (Id. at p. 1213.) In Sabine & Toshio, the child
in question was a minor; no case since has extended this prohibition
to children who are now the age of majority. Here, we hold that
parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past
due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the
age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in
place."
Makes sense. Especially here. Husband and Wife get divorced, and have four kids: "ages 5, 9, 10, and 12 years old." Husband is ordered to pay child support, and Husband "made some payments, but failed to fully comply with
the trial court’s orders. He was declared a contemptuous litigant
because he “made no reasonable efforts to support his children.”
Lewis “terminated his job in September 2000 and moved to Utah to
avoid payment of support.” In 2002, a bench warrant was issued for
Lewis’s arrest. Lewis later moved out of the United States. He
made infrequent payments thereafter."
Okay. We obviously want to spank that guy.
Two decades later, Husband wants to strike a deal with Wife (maybe so he can come back to the U.S. and get a job?) about the overdue child support. After lots of negotiating, they agree to split what's owed, and Husband pays $272,500, with the final payment in 2021.
All done, right?
No. As one might expect from the opening paragraph of today's opinion.
The Court of Appeal holds that he still owes the additional quarter-million plus. We're not going to enforce the settlement.
Which is fine, right? Husband's got to pay the whole thing. Like he should have in the beginning.
The only downside, in my view, is that this radically reduces the incentive for spouses like this to come back in the first place. Sure, if they do, in fact, return, you can potentially get one hundred cents on the dollar.
But if that's the law, the number of former spouses willing to say "Screw it, I'll just continue with my existing life and pay nothing at all" necessarily increases. Meaning less, rather than more, money for their children (and former spouse).
It's like if you prohibited all settlement agreements in civil lawsuits. Sure, you'd get more "justice" since everyone now gets fully compensated if they prevail at trial, rather than having to accept pennies on the dollar.
It's just that some of them would now get absolutely nothing. Which, amongst other reasons, is why we don't have that rule.
