In Re Marriage of Roesch
83 Cal.App.3d 96, 147 Cal. Rptr. 586, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1744 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's legal duty to pay court-ordered child support is an independent obligation that cannot be made conditional upon the custodial parent's compliance with visitation orders. A parent's remedy for interference with visitation rights is to seek a modification or enforcement of the visitation order in court, not to engage in self-help by withholding support payments.
Facts:
- Helen F. Roesch and William R. Roesch were married in Pennsylvania in 1947 and resided there for nearly all of their 27-year marriage.
- The couple had two children, one of whom, David, was a minor at the time of their separation.
- During the marriage, William was employed by Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, eventually rising to the position of president and chief executive officer.
- Just prior to the couple's separation on December 28, 1973, William signed an employment contract to become the president and chief executive officer of Kaiser Industries in California, with his employment to commence on January 1, 1974.
- After the separation, William moved to California and established his domicile there.
- Helen and the minor son, David, remained residents of Pennsylvania.
Procedural Posture:
- William R. Roesch (husband) commenced an action for marital dissolution against Helen F. Roesch (wife) in the Alameda County trial court.
- The trial court issued an interlocutory judgment dissolving the marriage, dividing property, and ordering support.
- As part of the judgment, the trial court ordered the husband to pay $500 per month in child support but conditioned this obligation on his visitation rights not being interfered with by the wife or the minor child.
- Helen F. Roesch (appellant) appealed several portions of the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by making a parent's child support obligation contingent upon the custodial parent's non-interference with visitation rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Christian, J.
Yes. It was an abuse of discretion to make the husband’s obligation to pay child support dependent upon a lack of interference with his visitation rights. The paramount consideration is the child's welfare, and an order that deprives a child of support for the alleged fault of a parent is not a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Such a conditional order improperly invites the paying parent to withhold support payments as a form of self-help, rather than seeking a neutral judicial determination of the grievance, which undermines the coordinated enforcement of court decrees concerning both support and visitation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in California that child support and visitation rights are separate and independent issues. It prevents parents from using child support as a tool or leverage in disputes over visitation, thereby protecting the child's financial well-being from the conflicts of their parents. The ruling mandates that a parent experiencing visitation interference must seek a judicial remedy, such as a motion to modify the custody order, rather than unilaterally withholding support. This precedent ensures that a child's right to support remains paramount and is not contingent on the conduct of the custodial parent.
