Filed 3/20/18 Marriage of Paramdeep and Tank CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



In re the Marriage of PARAMDEEP and MONINDER S. TANK.

PARAMDEEP TANK,

Respondent,

v.

MONINDER S. TANK,

Appellant.
D071961


(Super. Ct. No. D553882)

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Darlene A. White, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Moninder S. Tank, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Moninder S. Tank (Husband) appeals from an order modifying his monthly child support to Paramdeep Tank (Wife) from $2,000 to $2,478. Husband contends the court erred in modifying his child support because the parties had stipulated to Wife receiving the lower amount. Husband alternatively contends the court erred in calculating his child support in two respects: (1) by basing its calculations on Wife having zero income, and (2) by including Husband's new spouse's income in its calculations.
We conclude the court had the authority to modify child support notwithstanding the parties' stipulated agreement. We additionally conclude there is substantial evidence to support the court's determination Wife had no net income for purposes of calculating child support. Finally, we conclude the record shows the court used Husband's new spouse's income for the permissible purpose of calculating Husband's actual income tax liability in order to accurately determine Husband's real net disposable income. We, therefore, affirm the order.
II
BACKGROUND
As part of the judgment on reserved issues after the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the parties stipulated Husband was to pay Wife monthly child support of $2,000. The child support amount was below the statewide uniform guideline.
Wife subsequently filed a request for an order modifying child support. She claimed the stipulated agreement was the product of duress, confusion, nervousness, and attorney negligence.
In support of her request, Wife filed an income and expense declaration stating she had $200 in assets; monthly earnings of $1,000; monthly deductions of $65 for union dues and retirement payments; average monthly expenses of $7,095; additional monthly expenses of $2,950 for child care, health care, education, and visitation travel; and extraordinary monthly health expenses of $225. Husband filed a responding income and expense declaration stating he had $3,100 in assets, monthly earnings of $8,263, monthly investment losses of $675, monthly deductions of $591 for retirement and health care payments, average monthly expenses of $3,980, and average monthly visitation travel expenses of $300.
The court modified Husband's monthly child support from $2,000 to $2,478. The court based the modification on findings Mother had a net income of zero and Father had a net income of $6,453. Father's net income included wages of $8,271, other nontaxable income of $1,000, new spouse income of $7,500, health insurance expenses of $528, property tax expenses of $528, interest expenses of $2,200, and mandatory retirement expenses of $69.
III
DISCUSSION
"We review a child support order for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] In so doing, we determine ' "whether the court's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion." [Citation.] We do not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court, but determine only if any judge reasonably could have made such an order.' [Citation.] In exercising its discretion, however, the trial court must follow established legal principles. [Citation.] To decide whether the trial court followed established legal principles and correctly interpreted the child support statutes, we apply the independent standard of review." (In re Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718, 730–731.)
A
Husband contends the court erred in modifying his child support because the parties had previously stipulated to a lower amount. However, a court may modify a child support order, even a child support order based on an agreement of the parties, at any time the court determines a modification is necessary. (Fam. Code, § 3651, subds. (a) & (e).) Although modification of a child support order usually requires evidence of a change of circumstances (In re Marriage of Williams (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1234), "[i]f the parties to a stipulated agreement stipulate to a child support order below the amount established by the statewide uniform guideline, no change of circumstances need be demonstrated to obtain a modification of the child support order to the applicable guideline level or above." (Fam. Code, § 4065, subd. (d); In re Marriage of Williams, supra, at pp. 1234–1235.) Thus, the court had the authority, notwithstanding the parties' stipulated agreement, to modify the child support order.
B
Husband next contends the court erred by failing to include Wife's income in calculating child support. The record does not support this contention.
Rather, the record indicates the court based its guideline calculation on the parties' net income and it found Wife had no net income for child support purposes. Wife's income and expense declaration shows Wife's average monthly expenses far exceed her average monthly income. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the court's determination Wife had no net income for purposes of calculating child support.
C
Finally, husband contends the court erred in including his new spouse's income in the court's child support calculations. Again, the record does not support this contention.
A court may not consider a new spouse's income when modifying child support unless the child would suffer extreme and severe hardship by excluding the income. (Fam. Code, § 4057.5, subd. (a)(1); County of Tulare v. Campbell (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 847, 851(Tulare).) Nonetheless, a court may take a new spouse's income into account to calculate a parent's actual income tax liability based on the combined gross income of the parent and the new spouse in order to accurately determine the parent's real net disposable income. (Fam. Code, § 4059, subd. (a); Tulare, supra, at pp. 849, 854, 856.)
California courts use sophisticated computer programs to aid in calculating guideline child support. (Tulare, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851–852.) The program used in this case requires the court to input the gross income of the new spouse when, as here, the parent is filing a joint return with the new spouse. The data is used by the computer program for tax purposes only. (Id. at p. 852.) As such use of a new spouse's income is permissible (id. at pp. 849, 854, 856) and the record does not indicate the court used Husband's new spouse's income for any other purpose, Husband has not established the court erred in its consideration of his new spouse's income to calculate child support.
IV
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. No costs are awarded in this appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5); see, e.g., In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 698, 704.)


MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:




HUFFMAN, J.




HALLER, J.