Child support in California is governed by one overarching principle: parents must share financial responsibility for their children. Yet a recurring issue in family court is what legally qualifies as “income” when calculating a parent's support obligation. The recent appellate decision in Pateras v. Armenta (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 142 offers important guidance, particularly for parents receiving non-traditional or non-taxable payments.

At the Law Offices of Steve Lopez, we represent both payors and recipients of child support in Los Angeles and across Southern California. In this article, we break down Pateras v. Armenta to help parents understand how California courts determine income for child support—and why even non-taxable tribal benefits can be counted.

The Facts Behind Pateras v. Armenta

Thomas Armenta, a member and employee of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, earned a $114,000 annual salary and received an additional $5,000 per month through the tribe's general welfare program. Tiffini Pateras, the mother of their child, filed a petition seeking an increase in child support and need-based attorney's fees.

Armenta argued that the tribal benefits were exempt from taxation and should therefore be excluded from his income for child support purposes. He cited the General Welfare Exclusion Act and tribal sovereignty principles.

The trial court disagreed and included the $5,000/month tribal payments as income under Family Code section 4058. Armenta appealed. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the tribal payments were properly included as income.

Why This Case Matters

At the heart of Pateras v. Armenta is the distinction between federal taxability and state child support policy. The appellate court emphasized that income for child support purposes is not constrained by what the IRS considers taxable. The focus instead is on what money is available to a parent to support their child.

Quoting In re Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718, the court stated:

"A parent may have income that is not taxable but that would be available for support of the child."

In other words, California courts interpret “income” under Family Code § 4058 very broadly. Whether money is taxable is irrelevant if it increases a parent's ability to support their child

Why the Tribal Payments Counted as Income

The Chumash tribe's general welfare program was purportedly aimed at supporting cultural, educational, and family needs of tribal descendants. However, the court found that these payments did not qualify as need-based public assistance, which would have been excluded under Family Code § 4058(c).

To invoke the exclusion, Armenta had the burden of proving that the tribal payments were based on demonstrated financial need—similar to how SSI or CalWORKs are administered. He failed to do so.

Crucially, the court noted that:

• There were no specific low-income eligibility criteria to qualify for the benefits;
• Armenta earned over $114,000 annually, suggesting the payments were not need-based;
• The tribe's ordinance described general welfare goals but lacked objective, enforceable need-based standards.

Thus, the court concluded that the $5,000/month in tribal benefits was not public assistance based on need and was therefore includable as income.

Legal Takeaways from Pateras v. Armenta

1. Income Includes More Than Wages
   Any recurring benefit that enhances a parent's financial standing—whether from a tribe, a trust, or another source—may be considered “income” under California law.

2. Non-Taxable Doesn't Mean Excluded
   Federal income tax treatment does not control whether money is counted in child support calculations.

3. Parents Have the Burden of Proof for Exclusions
   A parent seeking to exclude income under § 4058(c) must prove that the payments are truly need-based public assistance—not merely labeled “welfare.”

4. Tribal Sovereignty Doesn't Override State Family Law
   The court clarified that enforcing California's child support guidelines does not interfere with tribal governance. A state court can rule on child support obligations of tribal members as long as it does not exercise jurisdiction over the tribe itself.

Broader Implications

The Pateras decision aligns with previous rulings involving tribal income and other non-wage earnings. California courts have consistently ruled that:

• Bonuses from tribes (M.S. v. O.S. (2000))
• Rent-free tribal housing (Stewart v. Gomez (1996))
• Per capita payments (Seymour v. Hunter (Iowa 1999))

...all count as income when determining support obligations.

What this means for parents is clear: if you receive any kind of recurring financial benefit—even if it's not taxed or comes from a sovereign entity—it may be counted as income in child support cases.

Protecting Your Rights in Child Support Cases

At the Law Offices of Steve Lopez, we understand that income determination can be complex—especially when tribal benefits, trust payments, or other non-traditional income streams are involved. Whether you're the payor or payee, we work to ensure your financial position is presented clearly and fairly under the law.

We also assist clients in modifying child support orders when income changes, or when one party attempts to conceal or misclassify income.

Need help understanding what income will be used in your child support case?
📞 Contact the Law Offices of Steve Lopez to schedule your consultation.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every family law case involves unique facts and circumstances. For legal advice specific to your situation, consult with a qualified family law attorney.