Kristen Usich v. Thomas Crum

This matter is on calendar for hearing on Thomas Crum’s (Father’s) Request for Order filed on March 23, 2026, seeking a modification of child support. Specifically, Father seeks a modification of child support to reflect that one of the two minor children—Thomas Crum (DOB 11/03/2007)—will be graduating from high school on May 30, 2026. The shared daughter Cassidy Rose is 16 (DOB 04/24/2010). Father further seeks clarification with respect to “add-on expenses.”

Kristen Usich (Mother) filed a responsive declaration March 27, 2026, opposing the request. Mother asks this Court to: (1) deny any reduction of support prior to June 1, (2) order complete financial disclosure by Father, (3) recalculate guideline support as of June 1st for 1 minor child, (4) increase support as appropriate, (5) allocate educational and medical add-ons, and (6) exercise its discretion to order Father’s continued contribution towards medical and dental expenses as their son transitions to college.

The case was continued on April 16, 2026, at a scheduled hearing during which Father was instructed to submit supporting papers for his request no later than May 7, 2026. Both Mother and Father submitted financial documents and accompanying declarations on May 7, 2026, in response to the Court’s request.

The Court has reviewed previous orders issued by this Court relating to child support, including, but not limited to, the Findings and Order After Hearing dated October 7, 2021.

ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUES USED IN XSPOUSE CALCULATION

There is a federal requirement that all states have a uniform child support guideline. The child support “guideline” on which the calculators are based is not an optional guide but rather is the name for the state law setting out a standardized formula for calculating child support. As required by Family Code section 3830 and California Rule of Court 5.275, the Judicial

FL1500482

Council has certified programs that provide child support calculations consistent with the applicable statutes and rules of court. This Court uses the Xspouse program for calculating child and spousal support.

Parenting time share. Father’s Income and Expense Declaration (I&E) states the time share for the children as 50/50, but Father does not provide any explanation to support this time share. Mother’s Responsive declaration states that Father has children Wednesdays and 27 weekends. This allocation is consistent with a Marin Family Court Services (FCS) report dated September 27, 2021 and this Court’s October 7, 2021, order.

Under Local Rules 7.14(C) and consistent with this Court’s Findings and Order After Hearing, dated October 7, 2021, the Court finds Father’s timeshare with the children is 40%. Father’s and Mother’s reported income. Father’s most current paycheck stub shows year-todate wages through April of 2026 of $53,942.36 which calculates to an average monthly income of $13,486. Further, Father’s Income and Expense Declaration states average monthly income of $13,750. Finally, Father’s 2025 Federal Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) reflects an adjusted gross income of $143,796 ÷12=$11,983.) The Court has used the $13,486 value for purposes of Father’s income.

Mother did not submit paycheck stubs but submitted evidence of deposits for January, February, and March in the amount of $10,000. Mother has further submitted W2s showing annual wage income of $139,074.30 or $11,590 a month.

Other taxable income. Mother reports $50 of interest income in the last month.

Health insurance. Mother has provided information and documentation regarding monthly health insurance payments.

The XSpouse calculation, showing guideline child support for Cassidy Rose effective June 1, 2026, is attached to this order as Exhibit A.

ORDER

1. The Court denies any reduction of child support prior to June 1, 2026.

2. The Court orders guideline child support for Cassidy Rose, effective June 1, 2026, and forward of $735.00 a month payable half on the first day of each month and half on the 15th day of each month, continuing until further order of this Court, or until the child involved marries, dies, is emancipated, reaches age 19, or reaches age 18 and is not a full-time high school student, whichever occurs first.

3. The parties shall share equally all reasonable uninsured medical and dental expenses incurred on behalf of the minor child, Cassidy Rose. The parties are ordered to comply with the provisions of Family Code section 4063 in seeking reimbursement for uninsured medical and dental expenses.

4. Father is not responsible for contributions towards medical and dental expenses for Thomas Crum (DOB 11/03/2007) following graduation from high school as he transitions to college.

FL1500482

Any additional requests made by either party in their moving, responding, and reply pleadings which are not addressed in this order are denied.

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.