Taylor v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Torts

Tortschild supportstandingwelfare assignmentsecurity for supportstandingcapacity to suechild support

Facts

Taylor, the mother of two children, was receiving AFDC benefits from Santa Clara County and therefore assigned to the County her rights to support that had accrued at the time of the assignment. A prior divorce order required Jacob, the children's father, to pay child support, and Taylor alleged there were $7,596 in arrearages. After Jacob became entitled to a $100,000 inheritance, Taylor filed an action seeking declaratory relief to establish a lien against that inheritance as security for child support, but she did not name the County as a party. The County nonetheless had notice of the proceeding, participated in it, and joined in Taylor's petition in the appellate court.

Issue

Does a custodial parent who has assigned accrued child-support rights to a county as a condition of receiving AFDC lose standing to ask the family law court to require the obligor parent to post reasonable security for future child-support payments? If the County's interests are implicated, does that justify dismissal for lack of standing or capacity?

Rule

An assignment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 11477 of support rights that have accrued at the time of assignment transfers past-due support rights, not all future rights. Accordingly, the custodial parent retains concurrent standing with the county to seek reasonable security for future child-support obligations, and any failure to join the county is a joinder problem curable by amendment rather than a lack of standing or capacity to sue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fresno, Lena Ortiz receives public assistance for her son and, as required, assigns to Kings Valley County her child-support rights that had accrued as of the date of the assignment. Months later, after the child's father, Nolan Pierce, announces plans to sell a parcel of land he owns in Bakersfield, Lena files a family-law action asking the court to require Nolan to post reasonable security for future child-support payments.

Nolan demurs, arguing that the assignment means only the county has standing to pursue any support-related relief. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the statutory assignment reaches support rights that had accrued at the time of assignment, not all future rights. A custodial parent therefore retains concurrent standing with the county to seek reasonable security for future child-support obligations. The county's reimbursement interest does not make its remedy exclusive.