A ruling on LA Laker Steve Nash’s lengthy court battle is expected
later this summer. The Canadian point guard and ex-wife Alejandra Amarilla
Menrath gave closing arguments in a mobility case late last week.
Menrath applied to move with the children to Los Angeles, (where Nash currently
lives and works) however Nash insists the children remain in Phoenix,
stating, “I don’t want my kids to grow up in LA.” (TMZ.com.) Nash joined the Lakers in 2012, after eight years with
the Phoenix Suns and reportedly plans to retire in Arizona when his time
with the NBA is over.
The unstated issue surrounding the conflict seems to be over a potential
child support claim. Nash and Menrath divorced in 2011, and an Arizona
judge ruled that a multi-million dollar settlement in Menrath’s favour
was sufficient, denying any claim for child support. (The couple have
three children together.) Nash reportedly pays most of the children’s
expenses already, and Menrath is said to be financially self-sufficient.
If Menrath is allowed to relocate to California, she may have a successful
claim based on California’s mandatory child support regime. Similar
to Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, California courts are
required to order the amount of child support determined by the guidelines unless
the case fits one of the few legal exceptions to the rule. In general,
departures from the guidelines are only permitted in cases of substantial
wealth, or the support of other children.
Menrath bears little burden of proof when it comes to previous agreements
and orders. California law states, “if the parties to a stipulated
agreement stipulate to a child support order below the guideline amount,
no change of circumstances need be shown to obtain a modification of the
order”.
The legal principles supporting Menrath’s claim are that “each
parent should pay for the children’s support according to that parent’s
ability to pay,” and that “children should share in both parents’
standard of living, and child support may appropriately improve the standard
of living of the custodial household to improve the children’s lives.”
Based on these principles, Menrath may have a strong argument for disparity
in standard of living; and Nash is presently able to pay child support.
Once a child support claim is made, the onus is on the payor to demonstrate
that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate. Nash
would likely have a valid counter argument under California Family Law,
which allows the court to “adjust a presumed child support figure
if the parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily
high income and the formula amount would exceed the child’s needs.”
According to TMZ, Nash maintains that any additional support awarded to
Menrath would result in lavish and unnecessary spending, stating, “A
major reason we divorced was her incessant spending, social climbing and
materialism”.