Monterey?County?v.?Cornejo?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1271?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?405;?812?P.2d?586
[No.?S014436.?Jul?18,?1991.]MONTEREY?COUNTY,?Plaintiff?and?Appellant,?v.?ROBIN?JOSEPH?CORNEJO,?Defendant?and?Respondent.
(Superior?Court?of?Monterey?County,?No.?DA6628,?John?N.?Anton,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.J.,?Broussard,?Panelli?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?with?Kennard,?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Morris?Beatus?and?Josanna?Berkow,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Appellant.
Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney?(Los?Angeles),?Harry?B.?Sondheim?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Appellant.
Segretti,?Pitman?&?Erdbacher,?Robert?J.?Pitman?and?John?Viljoen?for?Defendant?and?Respondent.
OPINION
ARABIAN,?J.
We?granted?review?to?determine?whether,?in?a?proceeding?brought?by?the?district?attorney?for?modification?of?a?child?support?order?and?determination?of?arrearages,?the?trial?court?may?allocate?to?the?noncustodial?parent?the?dependency?deduction?for?state?and?federal?tax?purposes.?We?hold?that?the?allocation?was?proper.
- Facts
The?essential?facts?are?undisputed.?Respondent?Robin?Joseph?Cornejo?is?the?natural?father?of?Jason?A.,?born?to?Dina?G.?on?September?17,?1980.?The?couple?never?married.?[53?Cal.3d?1274]
Respondent?separated?from?Dina?and?the?unborn?child?in?January?1980.?That?same?month,?Dina?began?to?receive?welfare?benefits?(Aid?to?Families?with?Dependent?Children?(AFDC))?from?Monterey?County?(County);?she?continued?to?receive?public?assistance?until?1983.
In?April?1980,?the?district?attorney?of?the?County?filed?a?complaint?on?behalf?of?Dina?and?Jason?for?child?support?and?reimbursement?of?public?assistance.?Respondent?acknowledged?paternity?and?agreed?to?pay?child?support?of?$100?per?month.?He?also?stipulated?to?Dina’s?continued?physical?and?legal?custody?of?Jason.?The?district?attorney?filed?two?subsequent?actions?in?1983?for?upward?modifications?of?the?support?order?and?a?determination?of?arrearages.
The?instant?proceeding?commenced?in?December?1988,?when?the?district?attorney?again?sought?an?increase?in?child?support,?to?$385?per?month,?and?a?determination?of?arrearages,?pursuant?to?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?sections?11350.1?and?11475.1.fn.?1?In?a?responsive?declaration?respondent?agreed?to?monthly?child?support?payments?of?$250?and?$25?per?month?toward?arrearages.?At?the?same?time,?respondent?requested?that?he?be?allowed?to?claim?the?child?as?a?dependent?for?federal?and?state?income?tax?purposes.?Respondent?alleged?that?Dina?had?claimed?the?dependency?deduction?each?year?since?Jason’s?birth.?The?district?attorney?opposed?the?request?on?three?grounds:?(1)?that?the?trial?court’s?”jurisdiction”?in?child?support?enforcement?actions?under?section?11350.1?was?limited?to?the?issues?of?support?and?paternity?and?did?not?extend?to?tax?matters;?(2)?that?it?was?”inappropriate”?to?litigate?the?custodial?parent’s?tax?benefits?in?an?action?to?which?she?was?not?a?party;?and?(3)?that?a?reallocation?of?the?deduction?would?require?a?further?adjustment?of?child?support.
The?parties?ultimately?agreed?upon?a?modification?of?child?support?to?$272?per?month,?and?arrearages?of?$2,546.32,?leaving?the?allocation?of?the?dependency?deduction?as?the?sole?unresolved?issue.?Following?a?hearing,?the?trial?court?ordered?that?respondent?”shall?be?allowed?to?claim?the?minor?child?…?as?a?dependent?for?state?and?federal?income?tax?purposes?until?further?order?of?the?court.”
The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed,?holding?that?the?trial?court?possessed?the?statutory?authority?to?allocate?the?tax?deduction,?and?that?Dina’s?interests?were?adequately?protected?in?the?enforcement?proceeding.?[53?Cal.3d?1275]
The?Attorney?General?filed?a?petition?for?review?on?behalf?of?the?County.fn.?2?In?addition?to?the?statutory?and?due?process?claims?raised?below,?the?County?alleged?that?federal?tax?law?divested?the?trial?court?of?jurisdiction?to?allocate?the?dependency?deduction?to?the?noncustodial?parent.?While?generally?we?will?not?consider?arguments?which?could?have?been?but?were?not?timely?made?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?(Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?29(b)(1)),?we?granted?review?because?the?federal?preemption?claim?presents?an?important?jurisdictional?issue?of?first?impression?in?this?state.
- Discussion
- Federal?Tax?Dependency?Exemption
Our?analysis?centers?on?section?152(e)?of?the?Internal?Revenue?Code?(section?152(e)).?Prior?to?January?1,?1985,?the?pertinent?provisions?of?that?section?provided?that?unless?otherwise?specifically?agreed?to?in?a?writing?by?the?parties?or?addressed?in?a?court?decree,?a?noncustodial?parent?was?entitled?to?claim?a?dependency?exemption?where?that?parent?paid?more?than?$1,200?toward?the?support?of?a?child?in?any?calendar?year?and?the?custodial?parent?”did?not?clearly?establish?that?he?[or?she]?provided?more?for?the?support?of?such?child?during?the?calendar?year?than?the?parent?not?having?custody.”?(Int.Rev.?Code?of?1954,???152(e)(2)(B),?as?amended?in?1976.)?State?decisions?had?uniformly?interpreted?the?pre-1985?version?of?section?152(e)?to?allow?state?court?allocation?of?the?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent.?(See,?e.g.,?Grider?v.?Grider?(Ala.Civ.?App.?1979)?376?So.2d?1103;?Greeler?v.?Greeler?(Minn.Ct.App.?1985)?368?N.W.2d?2;?Morphew?v.?Morphew?(Ind.Ct.App.?1981)?419?N.E.2d?770;?Pettitt?v.?Pettitt?(La.Ct.App.?1972)?261?So.2d?687;?Westerhof?v.?Westerhof?(1984)?137?Mich.App.?97?[357?N.W.2d?820];?Niederkorn?v.?Niederkorn?(Mo.Ct.App.?1981)?616?S.W.2d?529;?MacDonald?v.?MacDonald?(1982)?122?N.H.?339?[443?A.2d?1017].)
Section?152(e)?was?problematic?for?the?Internal?Revenue?Service?(IRS),?however,?because?it?often?involved?the?IRS?as?an?unwilling?mediator?in?factual?disputes?between?divorced?or?separated?parents?over?which?parent?provided?more?support?for?the?child?and?was?thus?entitled?to?the?dependency?exemption.?Accordingly,?the?law?was?amended?by?the?Tax?Reform?Act?of?1984?(Pub.L.?No.?98-369,?98?Stat.?494)?to?provide?that?the?custodial?parent?is?always?entitled?to?the?exemption?unless?he?or?she?signs?a?written?declaration?disclaiming?the?child?as?an?exemption?and?the?noncustodial?parent?[53?Cal.3d?1276]?attaches?the?declaration?to?his?or?her?return.?(Int.Rev.?Code?of?1954,???152(e)(2).)fn.?3
The?reasons?for?the?amendment?to?section?152(e)?are?set?forth?in?the?legislative?history?of?the?Tax?Reform?Act?of?1984,?as?follows:?”The?present?rules?governing?the?allocations?of?the?dependency?exemption?are?often?subjective?and?present?difficult?problems?of?proof?and?substantiation.?The?Internal?Revenue?Service?becomes?involved?in?many?disputes?between?parents?who?both?claim?the?dependency?exemption?based?on?providing?support?over?the?applicable?thresholds.?The?costs?to?the?parties?and?the?Government?to?resolve?these?disputes?is?relatively?high?and?the?Government?generally?has?little?tax?revenue?at?stake?in?the?outcome.?The?committee?wishes?to?provide?more?certainty?by?allowing?the?custodial?spouse?the?exemption?unless?the?spouse?waives?his?or?her?right?to?claim?the?exemption.?Thus,?dependency?disputes?between?parents?will?be?resolved?without?the?involvement?of?the?Internal?Revenue?Service.”?(Legislative?History?of?the?Deficit?Reduction?Act?of?1984?(Pub.L.?No.?98-369)?H.R.Rep.?No.?432,?pt.?II,?98th?Cong.,?2d?Sess.,?reprinted?in?1984?U.S.?Code?Cong.?&?Admin.?News,?pp.?697,?1140.)
Since?the?amendment?to?section?152(e),?the?vast?majority?of?jurisdictions?considering?the?issue?have?concluded?that?state?courts?retain?jurisdiction?to?allocate?dependency?exemptions?to?noncustodial?parents.?(Gamble?v.?Gamble?(Ala.Civ.App.?1990)?562?So.2d?1343;?(Lincoln?v.?Lincoln?(1987)?155?Ariz.?272?[746?P.2d?13];?Serrano?v.?Serrano?(1989)?213?Conn.?1?[566?A.2d?413];?In?re?Marriage?of?Einhorn?(1988)?178?Ill.App.3d?212?[533?N.E.2d?29];?Ritchey?v.?Ritchey?(Ind.Ct.App.?1990)?556?N.E.2d?1376;?In?re?Marriage?of?Kerber?(Iowa?Ct.App.?1988)?433?N.W.2d?53;?Hart?v.?Hart?(Ky.Ct.App.?1989)?774?S.W.2d?455;?Rovira?v.?Rovira?(La.Ct.App.?1989)?550?So.2d?1237;?Wassif?v.?Wassif?(1989)?77?Md.App.?750?[551?A.2d?935];?Bailey?v.?Bailey?(1989)?27?Mass.App.?502?[540?N.E.2d?187];?Fudenberg?v.?Molstad?(Minn.Ct.App.?1986)?390?N.W.2d?19;?Nichols?v.?Tedder?(Miss.?1989)?547?So.2d?766?[77?A.L.R.4th?757];?Corey?v.?Corey?(Mo.Ct.App.?1986)?712?S.W.2d?708;?In?re?Marriage?of?Milesnick?(1988)?235?Mont.?88?[765?P.2d?751];?Babka?v.?Babka?(1990)?234?Neb.?674?[452?N.W.2d?286];?Gwodz?v.?Gwodz?(1989)?234?N.J.?Super.?56?[560?A.2d?85];?Zogby?v.?Zogby?(1990)?158?A.D.2d?974?[551?N.Y.S.2d?126];?Cohen?v.?Cohen?(1990)?100?N.C.App.?334?[396?S.E.2d?344];?Fleck?v.?Fleck?(N.D.?1988)?427?N.W.2d?355;?Hughes?v.?Hughes?(1988)?35?Ohio?St.3d?165?[518?N.E.2d?1213],?cert.?den.?488?U.S.?846?[102?L.Ed.?97,?109?S.Ct.?124];?Hooper?v.?Hooper?(Tenn.App.?1988);?Motes?v.?Motes?(Utah?Ct.App.?1989)?786?P.2d?232;?In?re?Marriage?of?Peacock?(1989)?54?Wn.App.?12?[771?P.2d?767];?Cross?[53?Cal.3d?1277]?v.?Cross?(W.Va.?1987)?363?S.E.2d?449;?Pergolski?v.?Pergolski?(1988)?143?Wis.2d?166?[420?N.W.2d?414].)fn.?4
As?the?court?in?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?232,?succinctly?stated,?”the?amendment?was?merely?intended?to?enhance?the?administrative?convenience?of?the?IRS,?not?to?interfere?with?state?court?prerogatives.”?(Id.?at?p.?237;?see?also?Fudenberg?v.?Molstad,?supra,?390?N.W.2d?at?p.?21?[“State?court?allocation?of?the?exemption?does?not?interfere?with?Congressional?intent.?It?does?not?involve?the?IRS?in?fact-finding?determinations.?State?court?involvement?has?no?impact?on?the?IRS.?Thus,?allocation?of?the?exemption?is?permissible.”].)
The?same?courts?also?generally?agree?that,?while?a?court?order?by?itself?is?insufficient?under?section?152(e)?to?accomplish?an?allocation?to?the?noncustodial?parent,?state?trial?courts?retain?the?authority?to?allocate?the?dependency?exemption?by?ordering?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?the?necessary?waiver.?(See,?e.g.,?Cross?v.?Cross,?supra,?363?S.E.2d?at?p.?457;?Wassif?v.?Wassif,?supra,?551?A.2d?at?p.?940;?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?at?pp.?236-239;?Nichols?v.?Tedder,?supra,?547?So.2d?at?pp.?772-780;?Fudenberg?v.?Molstad,?supra,?390?N.W.2d?at?p.?21;?Pergolski?v.?Pergolski,?supra,?420?N.W.2d?at?p.?417;?In?re?Marriage?of?Milesnick,?supra,?765?P.2d?at?p.?754;?Lincoln?v.?Lincoln,?supra,?746?P.2d?at?pp.?16-17;?In?re?Marriage?of?Einhorn,?supra,?533?N.E.2d?at?pp.?36-?37;fn.?5?see?also?McKenzie?v.?Jahnke?(N.D.?1988)?[53?Cal.3d?1278]?432?N.W.2d?556,?557;?In?re?Marriage?of?Lovetinsky?(Iowa?Ct.App.?1987)?418?N.W.2d?88,?90;?and?compare?Jensen?v.?Jensen?(1988)?104?Nev.?95?[753?P.2d?342,?345]?[trial?court?may?exercise?its?equitable?powers?to?compel?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?a?waiver,?but?only?if?a?similar?economic?result?cannot?be?achieved,?as?a?matter?of?law,?by?adjusting?alimony?and?child?support?to?achieve?after-tax?financial?parity].)
As?the?court?in?Cross?v.?Cross,?supra,?363?S.E.2d?449,?cogently?explained:?”What?the?new?Code?section?sought?to?achieve?was?certainty?in?the?allocation?of?the?dependency?exemption?for?federal?tax?administration?purposes.?By?placing?the?dependency?exemption?in?the?custodial?parent?unless?a?waiver?is?executed,?the?new?statute?relieves?the?Internal?Revenue?Service?of?litigation.?The?new?statute?is?entirely?silent?concerning?whether?a?domestic?court?can?require?a?custodial?parent?to?execute?a?waiver,?and?this?silence?demonstrates?Congress’s?surpassing?indifference?to?how?the?exemption?is?allocated?as?long?as?the?IRS?doesn’t?have?to?do?the?allocating.”?(Id.?at?p.?457,?original?italics.)?Indeed,?in?the?absence?of?any?conflict?with?the?congressional?purpose,?and?in?light?of?the?long-standing?state?court?practice?of?allocating?dependency?exemptions?pursuant?to?their?equitable?powers?in?domestic?relations?cases,?it?is?eminently?reasonable?to?infer?that?if?Congress?had?intended?to?forbid?state?courts?from?allocating?the?exemptions?by?ordering?the?waiver?to?be?signed,?it?would?plainly?have?”said?so.”?(Id.?at?p.?458;?accord?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?at?p.?236;?Wassif?v.?Wassif,?supra,?551?A.2d?at?p.?940;?see?also?Hisquierdo?v.?Hisquierdo?(1979)?439?U.S.?572,?581?[59?L.Ed.2d?1,?11,?99?S.Ct.?802]?[In?family?law?matters?”this?Court?has?limited?review?under?the?Supremacy?Clause?to?a?determination?whether?Congress?has?’positively?required?by?direct?enactment’?that?state?law?be?preempted.”].)
A?small?minority?of?courts?have?concluded?otherwise,?holding?either?that?the?1984?amendment?to?section?152(e)?divests?state?courts?of?their?traditional?authority?to?allocate?the?dependency?exemption?(Lorenz?v.?Lorenz?(1988)?166?Mich.App.?58?[419?N.W.2d?770]),?or?that?even?if?state?courts?may?consider?the?exemption?in?awarding?child?or?spousal?support,?they?may?not?order?custodial?parents?involuntarily?to?execute?the?required?waiver.?(Sarver?v.?Dathe?(S.D.?1989)?439?N.W.2d?548;?McKenzie?v.?Kinsey?(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.?1988)?532?So.2d?98;?Brandriet?v.?Larsen?(S.D.?1989)?442?N.W.2d?455.)fn.?6?We?find?these?decisions?to?be?singularly?unpersuasive.?[53?Cal.3d?1279]
Michigan?is?the?only?jurisdiction?which?has?clearly?adopted?the?view?that?the?amendments?to?section?152(e)?”divested?state?courts?of?jurisdiction?over?which?party?could?take?the?exemptions.”?(Lorenz?v.?Lorenz,?supra,?419?N.W.2d?at?p.?771)?Lorenz?engaged?in?little?or?no?analysis?beyond?simply?noting?that?section?152(e)?does?not?expressly?authorize?state?authority?in?this?area.?As?discussed?earlier,?however,?neither?does?the?statute?prohibit-expressly?or?impliedly-a?state?court’s?requiring?the?execution?of?a?waiver.?So?long?as?the?declaration?is?signed?by?the?custodial?parent?and?attached?to?the?return?of?the?noncustodial?parent,?the?federal?goal?of?administrative?clarity?and?convenience?is?served;?the?statute?manifests?utter?indifference?to?whether?the?declaration?was?signed?voluntarily?or?pursuant?to?court?order.
The?decisions?holding?that?section?152(e)?precludes?an?involuntary?waiver?of?the?dependency?exemption?are?equally?without?merit.?The?Florida?District?Court?of?Appeal?rejected?the?majority?view?on?the?ground?that?”deductions?and?exemptions?…?are?not?to?be?extended?beyond?the?clear?import?of?the?language?used”?(McKenzie?v.?Kinsey,?supra,?532?So.2d?at?p.?100,?fn.?3),?while?the?South?Dakota?Supreme?Court?in?Brandriet?v.?Larsen?concluded?that?the?amendment?to?section?152(e)?”appear[s]?to?contemplate?a?’voluntary’?waiver.”?(442?N.W.2d?at?p.?459.)?As?pointed?out?earlier,?however,?section?152(e)?plainly?grants?the?noncustodial?parent?the?right?to?an?exemption?if?he?or?she?obtains?a?declaration?from?the?custodial?parent;?the?statute?is?absolutely?silent?as?to?whether?or?not?a?state?court?may?direct?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?the?declaration.?Thus,?as?the?court?in?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?232,?aptly?noted,?”the?McKenzie?court?offends?the?very?theory?it?purports?to?uphold?by?imposing?prohibitions?on?state?courts?which?are?not?expressly?or?impliedly?imposed?by?section?152.”?(Id.?at?p.?239.)
Furthermore,?as?we?discuss?more?fully?below,?all?of?the?foregoing?decisions?have?recognized-as?indeed?they?must-that?the?dependency?exemption?provides?a?financial?benefit?to?the?parent?entitled?to?claim?it?and?thus?must?be?considered?in?setting?child?and?alimony?support;?indeed,?in?three?of?the?decisions?where?the?exemption?was?held?to?have?been?improperly?awarded?to?the?noncustodial?parent?(Lorenz?v.?Lorenz,?supra,?419?N.W.2d?at?p.?772;?Davis?v.?Fair,?supra,?707?S.W.2d?at?p.?718;?Sarver?v.?Dathe,?supra,?439?N.W.2d?at?p.?552),?the?matter?was?remanded?to?the?trial?court?to?reduce?the?previously?awarded?child?support?and?alimony?in?light?of?the?noncustodial?parent’s?loss?of?this?financial?benefit.?Thus,?as?several?courts?have?observed,?[53?Cal.3d?1280]?invalidating?the?allocation?constitutes?little?more?than?a?perverse?exercise?in?futility:?”[T]he?minority?view?forces?state?courts?to?achieve?financial?parity?indirectly,?by?downwardly?adjusting?otherwise?appropriate?alimony?and?child?support,?rather?than?achieving?parity?directly,?by?sensibly?allocating?the?exemptions.”?(Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?at?p.?239;?accord?Cross?v.?Cross,?supra,?363?S.E.2d?at?pp.?458-459;?Nichols?v.?Tedder,?supra,?547?So.2d?at?p.?779;?Gamble?v.?Gamble,?supra,?562?So.2d?at?p.?1346.)
Finally,?as?many?states?have?recognized,?practical?considerations?militate?strongly?in?favor?of?states?retaining?discretion?to?allocate?the?exemption?by?ordering?the?execution?of?a?waiver.?”The?facts?of?life?are?that?income?tax?exemptions?are?valuable?only?to?persons?with?income,?and?up?to?a?certain?point,?the?higher?the?income?the?more?valuable?exemptions?become?because?of?the?progressivity?of?the?federal?income?tax.”?(Cross?v.?Cross,?supra,?363?S.E.2d?at?p.?459;?accord?Nichols?v.?Tedder,?supra,?547?So.2d?at?pp.?776-777;?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?at?p.?239.)?The?respective?incomes?of?the?parents?may?be?such?that?if?the?noncustodial?parent?is?allowed?the?exemption,?his?or?her?income?tax?may?be?reduced?by?an?amount?greater?than?the?increase?in?the?tax?liability?of?the?custodial?parent?deprived?of?the?exemption.?This?circumstance?will?obtain?where,?as?is?often?the?case,?the?custodial?parent’s?adjusted?gross?income?is?less?than?the?adjusted?gross?income?of?the?noncustodial?parent.?(See?Nichols?v.?Tedder,?supra,?547?So.2d?at?pp.?773-775.)
In?such?a?case,?the?effect?of?awarding?the?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent?is?to?increase?the?after-tax?spendable?income?of?the?family?as?a?whole,?which?may?then?be?channeled?into?child?support?or?other?payments.?(Nichols?v.?Tedder,?supra,?547?So.2d?at?pp.?774-775.)?To?deny?state?courts?the?power?to?allocate?the?exemption?in?these?circumstances?would?only?”maximize?the?federal?taxes?to?be?paid?to?the?detriment?of?the?parents?and?the?children.”?(Ibid.;?accord?Motes?v.?Motes,?supra,?786?P.2d?at?p.?239;?Cross?v.?Cross,?supra,?363?S.E.2d?at?p.?459;?Young?v.?Young?(1990)?182?Mich.App.?643?[453?N.W.2d?282,?289]?(conc.?opn.?of?Sawyer,?J.).)?Consequently,?it?is?eminently?reasonable?for?a?trial?court?to?allocate?the?dependency?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent?in?the?higher?income?bracket,?and?increase?the?child?support?payments?to?offset?the?cash?value?of?the?exemption.
In?sum,?we?find?nothing?in?the?1984?amendment?to?section?152(e)?that?precludes?our?state?trial?courts?from?exercising?their?traditional?equitable?power?to?allocate?the?dependency?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent?by?ordering?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?a?declaration?waiving?the?exemption.?In?the?instant?case,?however,?we?note?that?the?trial?court?assigned?the?tax?exemption?for?the?minor?child?to?respondent?but?did?not?order?the?custodial?parent,?Dina,?to?sign?the?necessary?declaration?which?must?be?[53?Cal.3d?1281]?attached?to?respondent’s?tax?return.?Nevertheless,?it?appears?from?the?record?that?the?trial?court?fully?intended?to?allocate?the?exemption?in?accordance?with?section?152(e).fn.?7?Accordingly,?the?matter?will?be?remanded?to?the?trial?court?to?make?clear?that?Dina?is?to?execute?the?requisite?declaration?in?consideration?of?the?increased?child?support?she?will?be?receiving.fn.?8
- Due?Process
As?noted?earlier,?the?County,?represented?by?its?district?attorney,?brought?this?action?on?behalf?of?the?mother?pursuant?to?sections?11475.1?and?11350.1.?Both?statutes?were?enacted?by?the?California?Legislature?as?a?precondition?to?the?state’s?participation?in?the?federal?AFDC?program.?(See????10600?et?seq.?&?11200?et?seq.)?A?1975?amendment?to?title?IV?of?the?federal?Social?Security?Act?mandates?that?states?which?participate?in?the?AFDC?program?shall?provide?child?support?collection?services?to?all?individuals,?whether?or?not?they?are?receiving?public?assistance.?(42?U.S.C.???654(6)(A);?45?C.F.R.???302.33(a).)
Section?11475.1?implements?this?mandate.?At?the?time?of?these?proceedings,?the?statute?specifically?provided?in?part?that?the?district?attorney?”shall?have?the?responsibility?for?promptly?and?effectively?enforcing?child?and?spousal?support?obligations”?and?that?the?district?attorney?”shall?take?appropriate?action,?both?civil?and?criminal,?to?enforce?this?obligation?when?the?child?is?receiving?public?assistance,?including?Medi-Cal,?and?when?requested?to?do?so?by?the?individual?on?whose?behalf?enforcement?efforts?will?be?made?when?the?child?is?not?receiving?public?assistance?….”fn.?9?(??11475.1,?subd.?(a);?Worth?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?207?Cal.App.3d?1150,?1154?[255?Cal.Rptr.?304].)
Section?11350.1?specifies?the?procedures?to?be?followed?and?limits?the?issues?to?be?litigated?in?actions?brought?under?section?11475.1.?Section?[53?Cal.3d?1282]?11350.1?reads?in?part?as?follows:?”Notwithstanding?any?other?statute,?in?any?action?brought?by?the?district?attorney?for?child?support?of?a?minor?child?or?children,?the?action?may?be?prosecuted?in?the?name?of?the?county?on?behalf?of?the?child,?children,?or?caretaker?parent.?The?caretaker?parent?shall?not?be?a?necessary?party?in?the?action?but?may?be?supoenaed?as?a?witness.?In?an?action?under?this?section?there?shall?be?no?joinder?of?actions,?or?coordination?of?actions,?or?cross-complaints,?and?the?issues?shall?be?limited?strictly?to?the?question?of?paternity,?if?applicable,?and?child?support?….?[?]?…?Nothing?contained?in?this?section?shall?be?construed?to?prevent?the?parties?from?bringing?an?independent?action?under?the?Family?Law?Act?(Part?5?(commencing?with?Section?4000)?of?Division?4?of?the?Civil?Code)?or?otherwise,?and?litigating?the?issue?of?support.?In?that?event,?the?court?in?those?proceedings?shall?make?an?independent?determination?on?the?issue?of?support?which?shall?supersede?the?support?order?made?pursuant?to?this?section.”
Although?contested?below,?the?relevance?of?the?dependency?exemption?to?the?issue?of?child?support?and?the?authority?of?the?trial?court?under?section?11350.1?to?allocate?the?exemption,?are?now?conceded?by?the?Attorney?General.?To?be?sure,?section?11350.1?limits?the?triable?issues?to?paternity?and?child?support.?Both?statutory?and?case?law?make?clear,?however,?that?the?dependency?exemption?is?highly?pertinent?to?the?issue?of?child?support,?and?is?therefore?a?proper?subject?of?consideration?in?enforcement?proceedings?undertaken?by?the?County.?Section?11476.1,?subdivision?(g)?directs?that?in?determining?the?noncustodial?parent’s?reasonable?ability?to?pay,?”any?relevant?circumstances?set?out?in?Section?246?of?the?Civil?Code?shall?be?considered.”?Civil?Code?section?246?requires?the?court?to?consider,?inter?alia,?the?earning?capacity?and?needs?of?each?party?(subd.?(a)),?the?obligations?and?assets?of?each?(subd.?(b)),?and?any?other?factors?which?the?court?deems?just?and?equitable?(subd.?(h)).?(See?Van?Diest?v.?Van?Diest?(1968)?266?Cal.App.2d?541,?545?[72?Cal.Rptr.?304]?[“Circumstances?to?be?considered?by?the?trial?judge?in?awarding?…?child?support?are?the?needs?of?the?parties?and?the?ability?to?meet?those?needs,?including?property?owned,?obligations?to?be?met,?ability?to?earn?and?actual?earnings.”].)
Clearly?the?parents’?income?tax?liability?is?an?”obligation?to?be?met”?under?this?rubric?(In?re?Marriage?of?Neal?(1979)?92?Cal.App.3d?834,?847?[155?Cal.Rptr.?157])?and?the?allocation?of?the?dependency?exemption?a?”just?and?equitable”?factor?to?be?considered?in?the?determination?of?the?amount?to?be?paid.?(Fuller?v.?Fuller?(1979)?89?Cal.App.3d?405,?409?[152?Cal.Rptr.?467].)?As?alluded?to?earlier,?nearly?every?state?to?consider?the?matter?has?concluded?that,?in?the?words?of?the?Iowa?Court?of?Appeals:?”[D]ependency?deductions?are?connected?directly?with?the?requirements?of?a?noncustodial?[53?Cal.3d?1283]?parent?to?provide?support?and?the?allocation?of?the?allowance?has?a?direct?effect?on?the?financial?resources?available?to?the?child.”?(In?re?Marriage?of?Lovetinsky,?supra,?418?N.W.2d?at?p.?90;?See?also?Baird?v.?Baird?(Mo.Ct.App.?1988)?760?S.W.2d?571,?573?[allocation?of?the?dependency?exemption?”may?directly?affect?the?entire?financial?position?of?each?party.”];?In?re?Marriage?of?Fowler,?supra,?554?N.E.2d?at?p.?243?[“The?allocation?of?the?tax?exemption?is?an?element?of?support,?over?which?a?trial?court?has?considerable?discretion.”];?Sarver?v.?Dathe,?supra,?439?N.W.2d?at?p.?551?[“[A]llocation?of?this?tax?exemption?affects?the?financial?situation?of?the?parties?and?constitutes?a?factor?in?considering?ability?to?pay?child?support.?These?are?absolutely?interlocking?considerations.”].)
Notwithstanding?the?undisputed?relevance?of?the?dependency?exemption?to?the?issue?of?child?support,?the?Attorney?General?contends?that?consideration?of?the?tax?matter?in?a?proceeding?to?which?the?custodial?parent?was?not?a?party,?such?as?a?child?support?enforcement?action?brought?by?the?district?attorney,?violates?the?custodial?parent’s?due?process?rights.?We?do?not?agree.?As?noted?earlier,?the?County,?represented?by?the?district?attorney,?filed?this?action?”on?behalf?of”?the?minor?child?and?Dina,?the?custodial?parent.?(???11350.1,?11475.1,?subd.?(a).)?Although?it?is?true?that?she?was?not?a?party,?Dina?fully?cooperated?with?the?district?attorney’s?efforts?on?her?behalf,?submitted?financial?disclosure?statements?and?was?available?to?testify?as?a?witness.?Both?parents?have?an?equal?responsibility?under?the?law?to?support?and?educate?their?child.?(Civ.?Code,???196a.)?Thus,?like?that?of?respondent,?Dina’s?employment,?income,?obligations,?number?of?dependents,?withholding?and?other?tax?information?were?highly?pertinent?to?the?County’s?motion?for?modification?of?support.
Dina?not?only?had?an?opportunity?and?an?obligation?to?present?evidence?on?the?question?of?the?dependency?exemption,?but?affirmatively?did?so;?the?district?attorney?submitted?written?points?and?authorities?in?opposition?to?the?award?and?argued?the?matter?to?the?court.?Accordingly,?we?perceive?no?denial?of?her?due?process?rights.fn.?10
Significantly,?we?note?also?that?section?11350.1?explicitly?preserves?Dina’s?right?to?relitigate?the?issue?of?child?support,?and?the?related?matter?of?the?dependency?exemption,?in?a?subsequent?action?under?the?Family?Law?Act,?and?expressly?provides?that?”[i]n?that?event,?the?court?in?those?[subsequent]?proceedings?shall?make?an?independent?determination?on?the?issue?of?support?[53?Cal.3d?1284]?which?shall?supersede?the?support?order?made?pursuant?to?this?section.”?(Italics?added.)?Thus,?as?the?court?in?County?of?Santa?Clara?v.?Farnese?(1985)?183?Cal.App.3d?257?[237?Cal.Rptr.?457]?trenchantly?observed,?an?order?under?section?11350.1?”is?not?graven?in?stone.”?(183?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?265.)?Dina,?in?short,?is?not?bound?by?the?allocation?of?the?exemption?in?the?section?11350.1?enforcement?proceeding;?she?may?initiate?a?subsequent?action?on?her?own?behalf,?and?the?court?in?that?proceeding?must?make?an?”independent”?determination?of?the?issue,?which?shall?”supersede”?the?earlier?order.
The?Attorney?General?and?amicus?curiae?nevertheless?assert?that?allocation?of?the?dependency?exemption?in?a?section?11350.1?action?may?implicate?tax?law?considerations?beyond?the?expertise?of?the?district?attorney,?and?thereby?prejudice?the?interests?of?the?custodial?parent.?We?note,?however,?that?the?matter?here?was?not?unduly?complex;?both?parents?were?single,?both?had?incomes?limited?to?wages?or?commissions,?and?the?only?dependent?involved?was?the?one?minor?child.?Moreover,?to?the?extent?that?either?the?district?attorney?or?the?custodial?parent?is?concerned?that?the?latter’s?rights?are?not?adequately?represented,?either?one?may?seek?to?have?the?custodial?parent?made?a?party?to?the?proceedings.?Furthermore,?the?court?is?not?obligated?to?decide?the?issue;?if?it?concludes?that?the?exemption?question?involves?collateral?matters?or?that?the?evidence?before?it?is?inadequate?to?decide?the?issue,?it?may?simply?decline?to?treat?it?and?leave?the?parents?to?an?independent?action?under?the?Family?Law?Act.?(County?of?San?Joaquin?v.?Woods?(1989)?210?Cal.App.3d?56,?61?[258?Cal.Rptr.?110].)
The?Attorney?General?and?amicus?curiae?also?express?concern?that?the?district?attorney?may?be?placed?in?a?position?of?conflict?or?even?potential?liability?if?the?relationship?with?the?custodial?parent?is?characterized?as?that?of?attorney/client;?there?may?be?circumstances,?for?example,?where?custody?of?the?minor?child?changes?and?the?district?attorney?is?compelled?to?seek?support?from?the?parent?whom?it?earlier?”represented.”?We?discern?no?such?dilemma.?The?statutory?scheme?empowers?the?district?attorney?to?establish,?modify?and?enforce?support?obligations?”in?the?name?of?the?county?on?behalf?of?the?child,?children?or?caretaker?parent.”?(??11350.1.)?[3]?The?purpose?of?such?actions?is?to?provide?a?direct?procedure?for?a?county?to?recoup?public?assistance,?and?to?assist?parents?with?limited?resources?to?enforce?support?obligations?so?that?public?funds?are?not?again?unnecessarily?expended.?(City?and?County?of?San?Francisco?v.?Thompson?(1985)?172?Cal.App.3d?652?[218?Cal.Rptr.?445];?In?re?Marriage?of?Shore?(1977)?71?Cal.App.3d?290,?298-300?[139?Cal.Rptr.?349].)?Notwithstanding?the?collateral?benefit?to?the?custodial?parent,?the?”client”?in?such?actions?remains?the?county.?[53?Cal.3d?1285]
In?conclusion,?we?find?no?merit?to?the?claim?that?the?award?of?the?dependency?exemption?in?this?case?violated?the?due?process?rights?of?the?custodial?parent.
Conclusion
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed?and?modified?to?provide?that?the?matter?be?remanded?to?the?superior?court?for?entry?of?an?order?conditioning?its?award?of?support?upon?execution?by?the?custodial?parent?of?an?appropriate?waiver?of?the?dependency?exemption.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Broussard,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Dissenting.
I?do?not?disagree?with?the?majority?that?a?court?may,?if?appropriate?and?consistent?with?section?152(e)?of?the?Internal?Revenue?Code,?allocate?a?tax?dependency?exemption?to?a?noncustodial?parent?by?ordering?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?a?declaration?waiving?the?exemption.
I?do?not?agree,?however,?that?such?an?allocation?may?be?ordered?without?giving?the?custodial?parent?notice?and?an?opportunity?to?be?heard?on?the?issue.?Unquestionably,?a?court?could?not?order?a?noncustodial?parent?to?pay?child?support?without?such?requisites?of?due?process.?(See?Solberg?v.?Wenker?(1985)?163?Cal.App.3d?475,?478-479?[209?Cal.Rptr.?545]?[“Judgments?for?paternity?or?child?support,?entered?as?a?result?of?an?agreement?between?the?district?attorney?and?a?parent?not?represented?by?an?attorney,?are?voidable?if?the?unrepresented?parent?can?establish?that?he?or?she?was?not?advised?by?the?district?attorney?of?the?right?to?trial?on?the?questions?of?paternity?and?ability?to?support?and?that?he?or?she?was?unaware?of?such?rights?and?would?not?otherwise?have?executed?the?agreement.”].)?In?my?view,?the?custodial?parent?is?entitled?to?equal?due?process?protection.
The?majority?assert?that?here?the?custodial?parent’s?due?process?rights?were?protected?because?the?district?attorney?filed?the?child?support?action?on?her?behalf,?she?submitted?financial?disclosure?statements,?she?could?have?been?called?to?testify?as?a?witness,?and?she?could?relitigate?the?issue?of?the?tax?dependency?exemption?in?a?subsequent?action.?I?am?not?convinced?that?the?foregoing?is?sufficient?under?article?I,?section?7,?subdivision?(a)?of?the?California?Constitution.
In?Anderson?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?1321?[262?Cal.Rptr.?405],?the?custodial?parent?appeared?without?counsel?as?a?witness?in?a?child?support?action?initiated?by?the?county?against?her?estranged?husband?for?reimbursement?for?aid?to?families?with?dependent?children?[53?Cal.3d?1286]?(AFDC)?benefits.?On?the?basis?of?her?testimony,?the?court?found?she?had?not?met?her?support?obligations?and?ordered?her?to?undertake?job?searches?or?enter?the?state?workfare?program?to?avoid?a?reduction?in?her?AFDC?payments.
The?Court?of?Appeal?directed?the?court?to?vacate?its?order.?It?considered?the?three?factors?set?forth?in?Mathews?v.?Eldridge?(1976)?424?U.S.?319,?335?[47?L.Ed.2d?18,?33,?96?S.Ct.?893],?to?determine?what?level?of?constitutional?due?process?is?required:?”?’First,?the?private?interest?that?will?be?affected?by?the?official?action;?second,?the?risk?of?erroneous?deprivation?of?such?interest?through?the?procedures?used,?and?the?probable?value,?if?any,?of?additional?or?substitute?procedural?safeguards;?and?finally,?the?Government’s?interest,?including?the?function?involved?and?the?fiscal?and?administrative?burdens?that?the?additional?or?substitute?procedural?requirements?would?entail.’?”?(Anderson?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1330.)?It?also?considered?a?fourth?factor?set?forth?in?People?v.?Ramirez?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?260,?267-268?[158?Cal.Rptr.?316,?599?P.2d?622],?i.e.,?that?persons?subjected?to?deprivatory?governmental?action?be?treated?with?respect?and?dignity.?(213?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1330.)?The?Court?of?Appeal?there?concluded?that?the?trial?court?violated?the?custodial?parent’s?rights?when?it?failed?to?require?adequate?and?timely?notice?of?the?family?law?procedure?through?which?her?AFDC?benefits?could?be?reduced?or?lost.
Applying?these?factors?here?leads?to?the?inescapable?conclusion?that?the?custodial?parent’s?due?process?rights?were?violated.?First,?the?private?interest?at?stake?was?the?tax?dependency?exemption.?As?the?majority?concede,?this?exemption?provides?a?financial?benefit?to?the?parent?entitled?to?claim?it.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1279.)?Its?allocation?by?the?court?may?in?fact?affect?the?entire?financial?position?of?each?party.?(See?Sarver?v.?Dathe?(S.D.?1989)?439?N.W.2d?548,?551;?Baird?v.?Baird?(Mo.Ct.App.?1988)?760?S.W.2d?571,?573.)?Thus?affected?were?the?custodial?parent’s?economic?interests,?i.e.,?the?property?referred?to?in?the?constitutional?due?process?provision.fn.?1
Second,?the?potential?risk?of?an?erroneous?deprivation?was?substantial.?The?custodial?parent?was?not?represented?by?the?district?attorney,?nor?was?her?position?on?the?question?of?the?dependency?exemption?urged?to?the?trial?[53?Cal.3d?1287]?court.?Contrary?to?the?majority’s?assertion,?the?district?attorney?did?not?present?the?custodial?parent’s?arguments?against?reallocating?the?exemption;?instead?he?argued?that?the?issue?should?not?be?considered?in?the?support?action.?For?example,?he?wrote?in?his?memorandum?of?points?and?authorities:?”The?position?of?the?District?Attorney?is?that?issues?of?a?dependency?deduction?for?tax?purposes?are?governed?by?state?and?federal?tax?law;?they?should?not?even?be?considered?in?a?support?action?brought?by?the?District?Attorney.”?And?he?used?the?same?strategy?at?the?hearing:?although?he?casually?mentioned?the?custodial?parent’s?view,?he?primarily?argued?that?the?question?was?not?properly?before?the?court.?It?follows?that?the?custodial?parent?in?fact?had?no?opportunity?to?be?heard?or?to?be?represented?by?counsel?on?this?significant?property?issue.
Third,?it?would?not?have?been?unduly?burdensome?to?have?allowed?the?custodial?parent?an?opportunity?to?be?heard.?The?state’s?interest?in?a?support?proceeding?”?’is?to?insure?that?the?moneys?disbursed?by?the?county?for?the?aid?of?a?needy?child?be?returned?to?the?public?source?from?which?they?are?disbursed.’?”?(County?of?Yolo?v.?Francis?(1986)?179?Cal.App.3d?647,?655?[224?Cal.Rptr.?585].)?The?state?also?has?an?interest?in?ensuring?adequate?support?for?children?following?their?parents’?dissolution?of?marriage.?(Anderson?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?1321,?1331.)?Neither?of?these?interests?would?be?undermined?by?giving?the?custodial?parent?notice?and?an?opportunity?to?be?heard?on?an?issue?that?affects?her?property?and?welfare.?Thus,?although?not?statutorily?obliged?to?do?so,?the?district?attorney?could?have?then?appropriately?argued?against?the?reallocation?of?the?tax?exemption?(see?Worth?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?207?Cal.App.3d?1150,?1155?[255?Cal.Rptr.?304]),?or?could?have?allowed?the?custodial?parent?to?appear?in?propria?persona?or?to?retain?her?own?counsel.?The?benefits?of?affording?such?process?would?have?far?outweighed?any?conceivable?burden.
Finally,?it?is?true?that?the?custodial?parent?may?subsequently?institute?an?independent?action?to?relitigate?the?issue?of?the?exemption,?if?she?can?find?the?means?to?do?so.?However,?for?”?’?”government?to?dispose?of?a?person’s?significant?interests?without?offering?him?[or?her]?a?chance?to?be?heard?is?to?risk?treating?him?[or?her]?as?a?nonperson,?an?object,?rather?than?a?respected,?participating?citizen.”?’?”?(Anderson?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1330,?quoting?People?v.?Ramirez,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?260?at?pp.?267-268.)?Especially?in?circumstances,?such?as?here,?in?which?the?custodial?parent?received?public?support?and?is?dependent?on?the?county?to?assert?her?need?for?increased?child?support,?we?should?not?so?lightly?allow?a?summary?deprivation?of?her?interests.?I?commend?the?Attorney?General?and?the?district?attorney?for?attempting?to?protect?those?interests.?This?court?should?do?no?less.?[53?Cal.3d?1288]
To?conclude,?the?court’s?allocation?of?the?tax?dependency?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent,?although?arguably?consistent?with?statutory?law,?violated?the?custodial?parent’s?constitutional?due?process?rights.?I?would?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
Kennard,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?Unless?otherwise?indicated,?all?statutory?references?are?to?the?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code.
FN?2.?The?California?District?Attorneys?Association?has?filed?an?amicus?curiae?brief?in?support?of?the?County.
FN?3.?See?IRS?form?8332,?”Release?of?Claims?to?Exemption?For?Child?of?Divorced?or?Separated?Parents.”?The?amendment?to?section?152?of?the?Internal?Revenue?Code?provided?two?additional?exceptions?to?the?rule?of?automatic?allocation?to?the?custodial?parent,?neither?of?which?is?applicable?in?this?case.?(Int.Rev.?Code?of?1954,???152(2)(3),?(4).)
FN?4.?One?court?has?concluded?that?section?152(e)?applies?only?to?parents?who?are?or?have?been?married?and?thus?precludes?allocation?of?the?exemption?to?a?noncustodial?parent?who?has?never?married?the?custodial?parent.?(Gleason?v.?Michlitsch?(1986)?82?Ore.App.?688?[728?P.2d?965,?967].)?No?other?state?court?has?followed?this?holding,?which?appears?to?be?contrary?to?the?plain?language?of?the?statute.?(See?Fudenberg?v.?Molstad,?supra,?390?N.W.2d?19.)?Section?152(e)(1)(A)?of?the?International?Revenue?Code?refers?to?three?categories?of?parents:?”divorced?or?legally?separated”;?”separated?under?a?written?separation?agreement”;?and?those?who?”live?apart?at?all?times?during?the?last?6?months?of?the?calendar?year?….”?Respondent?and?Dina?clearly?fall?within?the?third?grouping.
FN?5.?At?one?point?the?Illinois?Appellate?Courts?had?appeared?to?be?split?on?this?issue.?In?re?Marriage?of?Einhorn,?supra,?533?N.E.2d?29,?held?that?the?amendment?to?section?152(e)?”contains?no?requirement?that?the?declaration?must?be?signed?voluntarily?and?does?not?prohibit?state?courts?to?order?the?custodial?parent?to?sign?the?declaration”?(533?N.E.2d?at?p.?37;?accord?In?re?Marriage?of?Van?Ooteghem?(1989)?187?Ill.App.3d?696?[543?N.E.2d?899]).?In?re?Marriage?of?Emery?(1989)?179?Ill.App.3d?744?[534?N.E.2d?1014,?1018],?on?the?other?hand,?had?concluded?that?the?trial?court?”was?without?authority?to?award?the?exemption?….”?The?apparent?conflict?was?resolved?when?the?Emery?subsequently?distinguished?its?prior?decision,?observing?that?the?question?of?whether?a?trial?court?may?order?the?custodial?parent?to?sign?a?waiver?was?not?actually?before?it?in?Emery,?and?held,?in?conformity?with?Einhorn?and?Van?Ooteghem,?that?”a?trial?court?may,?in?its?discretion,?allocate?the?tax?dependency?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent?by?ordering?the?custodial?parent?to?sign?a?declaration?that?he?or?she?will?not?claim?the?dependency?exemption.”?(In?re?Marriage?of?McGarrity?(1989)?191?Ill.App.3d?501?[548?N.E.2d?136,?138].)?Subsequent?Illinois?decisions?have?uniformly?followed?Einhorn.?(In?re?Marriage?of?Rogliano?(1990)?198?Ill.App.3d?404?[555?N.E.2d?1114,?1121];?In?re?Marriage?of?Fowler?(1989)?197?Ill.App.3d?744?[554?N.E.2d?240,?243].)
FN?6.?There?are?other?cases?that?are?sometimes?cited?in?opposition?to?the?majority?view,?but?these?are?generally?distinguishable.?Two?such?decisions?are?Theroux?v.?Boehmler?(Minn.Ct.App.?1987)?410?N.W.2d?354?and?Davis?v.?Fair?(Tex.Ct.App.?1986)?707?S.W.2d?711.?In?each?case?the?court?held?that?the?trial?court?lacked?the?authority?under?section?152(e)?to?allocate?the?dependency?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent.?The?distinguishing?feature?of?each?case,?however,?is?that?in?neither?was?the?issue?of?a?court-?ordered?waiver?presented;?the?court?had?allocated?the?exemption?to?the?noncustodial?parent,?but?had?failed?to?order?the?custodial?parent?to?execute?the?statutorily?mandated?waiver.?(Theroux,?supra,?410?N.W.2d?at?p.?358;?Davis,?supra,?707?S.W.2d?at?pp.?712,?715.)?Thus,?carefully?analyzed,?neither?case?directly?conflicts?with?the?majority?position.
FN?7.?At?the?hearing?on?respondent’s?motion?for?the?allocation?of?the?exemption,?the?trial?court?was?made?aware?of?the?need?for?Dina?to?sign?a?waiver,?and?the?trial?court?observed:?”I?mean?she’s?got?to?waive,?she’s?got?to?waive?to?allow?him?to?take?it?as?a?dependency.?If?she?doesn’t?no?one?gets?any?benefit?out?of?this.”
FN?8.?As?discussed?more?fully?in?the?following?section,?Dina?was?not?a?party?to?the?proceeding;?it?was?brought?on?her?behalf?by?the?district?attorney?pursuant?to?sections?11475.1?and?11350.1.?Therefore,?while?the?trial?court?technically?could?not?”order”?Dina?to?execute?the?necessary?waiver,?it?could?condition?the?award?of?child?support?upon?her?doing?so.
FN?9.?The?pertinent?provisions?of?section?11475.1?have?since?been?amended.?The?amendment?effected?no?change?in?substance.?(See?Stats.?1989,?ch.?1359,???12.5.)
FN?10.?The?dissenting?opinion?states?that?the?district?attorney?did?not?address?the?merits?of?the?allocation?issue.?On?the?contrary,?the?district?attorney’s?written?opposition?stated:?”The?position?of?the?custodial?parent,?Dina?G.,?is?that?the?defendant?is?not?entitled?to?the?credit?because?there?are?so?many?expenses?associated?with?raising?the?child?that?(the?father)?refuses?to?pay.”?As?noted,?the?trial?court?considered?the?income?and?expenses?of?both?parents?in?its?decision?awarding?the?exemption?to?respondent.?Thus,?we?find?that?Dina?suffered?no?prejudice?or?denial?of?due?process.
FN?1.?The?trial?court?was?under?the?erroneous?impression?that?because?the?custodial?parent?was?earning?under?$10,000?a?year,?she?was?exempt?from?income?tax?and?unaffected?by?any?reallocation?in?the?dependency?exemption.?Yet?the?custodial?parent’s?income?declaration?stated?her?gross?income?was?$1,024?a?month.?The?court’s?miscalculation?illustrates?the?problem?of?not?allowing?the?custodial?parent?the?opportunity?to?be?heard.?The?district?attorney?recognized?this?in?his?argument?to?the?court:?”Well,?[whether?the?custodial?parent?receives?a?tax?benefit?is]?one?of?the?issues?that?we?feel?is?raised?by?their?request.?That’s?a?tax?law?question,?Your?Honor,?and?it’s?inappropriate?to?address?it?here.?And?she’s?not?a?party,?the?County’s?a?party.?She’s?not.”