CustodyThey Calculated
What You Owe.
We Calculate
What Your
Children Need.
The other side filed first. They set the numbers. They defined the terms. That is how most families end up with orders that serve the filing party — not the children. We read every proposed order as what it is: an opening position. Then we build the counter.
See What We SecuredShe was told $842 was the number. It wasn't even close.
Michelle had been living with a temporary support order for fourteen months when her ex-husband's attorney filed to make it permanent. The proposed amount was calculated on a salary that had not been updated since before a promotion — and excluded childcare, medical cost-sharing, and any provision for school expenses. She came to us with a stack of pay stubs and a number that did not add up. We rebuilt the calculation from her children's actual documented costs and filed a counter-petition the same week. The final order came back nearly double the original figure, with specific provisions for every line item the other side had quietly omitted.
| Line Item | Their Offer | Final Order |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Support | $842 / month | $1,640 / month |
| Medical Coverage | Father covers premiums only | Father covers premiums + 70% of out-of-pocket costs |
| Childcare Costs | Not addressed | Split proportionally to income (father 68%) |
| Education Expenses | Not addressed | Extracurricular and tutoring costs shared equally |
| Retroactive Arrears | None claimed | $4,200 in retroactive support from filing date |
| Annual Adjustment | No provision | Automatic cost-of-living adjustment each January |
The proposed order wasn't wrong by accident. It was wrong by design — every omission benefited one side. Our job is to find every one of them.
Free 30-minute case review. No retainer required to speak with us.
Served in Dallas. Children in Sacramento. The law had a clear answer — the other side just didn't mention it.
David was handed papers by a process server in the parking lot of his office. The filing was in Texas, where the children had lived briefly before moving with their mother to California eighteen months prior. Texas support guidelines calculate differently — and lower. The choice of jurisdiction was not incidental. We filed immediately to establish California as the controlling state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a motion the opposing attorney had apparently expected would never come. Once jurisdiction was settled, the calculation changed entirely: income guidelines, cost-sharing ratios, and custody time all shifted in David's favor. The final order gave him eight weeks of summer custody and a communication schedule his children could depend on.
| Line Item | Their Offer | Final Order |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Support | $1,100 / month (TX calculation) | $2,380 / month (CA guidelines applied) |
| Jurisdiction | Texas — lower income guidelines | California — controlling state per UCCJEA |
| Holiday Custody | Father: Thanksgiving only | Father: Alternating holidays + 8 weeks summer |
| Travel Costs | Father bears all costs | Costs split; mother responsible for school-year travel |
| School Enrollment | Mother has sole authority | Joint legal custody; father has input on school selection |
| Communication | No provision | Defined video call schedule (3×/week, 7–8 PM) |
Jurisdiction is not a formality. It is the most important decision in an interstate case — and it is almost always made in the first filing, by whoever moves first.
His attorney submitted a W-2. We submitted the K-1s, the bonus history, and four years of business distributions.
The most common tactic in high-income support cases is income minimization. Salary is reported. Bonuses are characterized as irregular. Business distributions disappear into entity structures. In this case, the opposing party's disclosed income was $9,500 per month — a figure that bore no relationship to the lifestyle, the assets, or the business records we subpoenaed. California courts are required to consider all sources of income available to a parent, including self-employment income, recurring bonuses, and distributions from closely held entities. We retained a forensic accountant, reconstructed four years of actual earnings, and presented an imputed income figure that the court accepted in full. The final order included a life insurance requirement and a lien on business assets — provisions the other side had never anticipated because they had expected the case to settle on their numbers.
| Line Item | Their Offer | Final Order |
|---|---|---|
| Reported Income | $9,500 / month (W-2 only) | $23,800 / month (imputed with bonuses + K-1 distributions) |
| Monthly Support | $1,850 / month | $4,920 / month |
| Private School | Not included in order | Father funds 100% of current private school tuition |
| College Savings | Not addressed | $800 / month contribution to 529 account |
| Life Insurance | Not addressed | $500K policy naming children as beneficiaries, required |
| Enforcement | Standard wage garnishment only | Lien on business assets + quarterly financial disclosure |
Income imputation is not aggressive lawyering. It is the law requiring that what a parent earns — not what they choose to report — determines what their children receive.
Three families started
where you are now.
None of them regretted
making the call.
We read the proposed order. We read the financials. We tell you plainly what the numbers say and what we can do about them. Thirty minutes. No retainer to start. No obligation to continue.
- We review your existing order or proposed agreement
- We identify every line item that can be contested
- We tell you what a realistic outcome looks like
- You decide whether to proceed — no pressure
Schedule Now
Get Your Case Reviewed
Speak with an attorney — not a paralegal, not a call center — about your specific order, your specific numbers, and your specific children.
Book Your Free ReviewConfidential · No retainer required · Available Mon–Fri