Request for Order – Spousal Support
Maria Elizabeth Yam Camaal (Mother) filed a request for order for spousal support on March 5, 2026. Eufemio Mukul Pina (Father) filed a responsive declaration opposing the request on April 8, 2026.
On March 17, 2026, the parties appeared and informed this Court that the parties had reached an agreement resolving this matter and a judgment would be filed.
On April 16, 2026, Judgment was filed with this Court reserving the issue of long-term spousal support for determination by this Court.
Subsequently, the parties each filed declarations addressing the Family Code section 4320 factors.
In the interest of justice, the Court will treat the previously filed Request for Order regarding interim spousal support as a request for long-term spousal support. In California, long-term spousal support is determined by weighing 14 mandatory factors under Family Code section 4320 to decide the amount and duration, aiming for the supported party to become self-supporting within a reasonable time. Key factors include the marital standard of living, earning capacities, assets/debts, age, health, and the length of the marriage. The Court addresses each of the factors below.
The fourteen Family Code § 4320 factors and their application to Mother’s RFO are:
a. The extent to which each party’s earning capacity will maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account (1) each party’s marketable skills and the time necessary to develop or acquire same, and (2) the extent to which a party’s
FL00022550
earning capacity was impaired by unemployment during marriage to devote time to domestic duties.
Mother and Father agree that the marital standard of living was modest. Each party is employed with marketable skills. Father reports monthly income in his Income and Expense Declaration of $3,698 a month in gross income. Mother reports gross income of $3,107 a month. Father represents that he makes less than his expenses. Mother reports her income just meets her expenses. As threshold matter, there is a question of Father’s current ability to spousal support in light of his current income, expenses associated with child support, and employment opportunities. Father reports, “for now I can’t support myself. Firstly because I can’t work much because of my hip. Secondly because I have a lot of debt. And lastly because I have child support and my own personal expenses.”
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
b. The extent to which the supported party contributed to the supporting party’s attainment of education or a professional license.
None (no contribution).
c. The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support, taking into account the supported party’s earning capacity, assets, and standard of living. Petitioner and Respondent agree that neither currently earns sufficient income to maintain the marital standard of living. As indicated, both parties are working and reporting monthly income of $3,107 (Mother) and $3,698 (Father). Father is to pay child support of $573.00 a month. Father’s currently works as a food runner, four to five hours a day from Tuesday to Sunday. As discussed above, Father’s current financial position, including outstanding debts, does not reflect an ability to pay spousal support.
d. The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage. Bot Mother and Father report the need for additional financial resources. Mother and Father purchased properties during their marriage. They did not, however, accumulate any meaningful savings in their names during their marriage. The Judgment entered by this Court provides that the real estate in Mexico is to be held in the names of their children. Father reports that the apartments are rented out with the proceeds directed to Mother. Father’s income, after payment of child support and child-related expenses, is not sufficient to meet his needs at the level of the marital standard of living. As indicated, Mother’s current income and expenses are closer to meeting Mother’s needs.
e. The obligations and assets, including the separate property, of each party. Both parties report owning cars. Mother reports not having any significant assets in her name. Father identifies various debts that are owed and no significant assets. There are no other known assets or obligations.
f. The duration of the marriage.
22 years, seven months.
FL00022550
g. The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without unduly interfering with the interest of dependent children in the custody of the party.
Both parents are currently working. Mother is working in retail. Mother reports no interest in participating in training to obtain additional schools, as she prefers to care for her children and attend to domestic duties.
h. The age and health of the parties.
Father is 49 years old. Mother is 47 years old. Father’s health is impaired. Specifically, Father has provided documentation relating to hip problems.
i. History of domestic violence.
A Restraining Order After Hearing (DV-130) was issued October 26, 2023. Father is the restrained party. Mother and the children are identified as protected persons.
j. Immediate and specific tax consequences to each party.
None.
k. The balance of hardships to each party.
Both parents claim hardship.
l. The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time.
Mother is employed. She possesses marketable skills. She does not, at this time, show any interest in expanding her skills or receiving education that would enable her to obtain higher paying employment.
m. Criminal conviction of an abusive spouse.
Not applicable.
n. Any other factors the court deems just and equitable.
None.
Conclusion
Based on the Court’s consideration of the Family Code section 4320 factors (above), the relative incomes and needs of Mother and Father, Mother’s request for spousal support is DENIED and spousal support is set at $0. The Court’s order is subject to modification, subject to a showing of changed circumstances.
FL00022550
As authorized by CRC Rule 5.125, the Court shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing.
Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.
IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department B. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department B for video conference via a link on the court website. Litigants in the virtual courtroom are required to leave the video screen on and wait for your case to be called.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.