Judge Scott Gordon in department 88 of the downtown los angeles court house ordered Mel Gibson to pay $20,000 a month in child support plus housing to Respondent Oksana. Petitioner (Mel Gibson) tried to downplay his current income and argued that his station in life is more than the child’s needs would be. This is a concern for many clients, that child support is based on the obligors income and does not take into consideration the needs of the minor child. The child in this matter is an infant; what could an infant need that would require $20,000 in child support? That question is irrelevant. Respondent, Oskana, of course argued that Mel Gibson earns far more than he provides and should pay hundreds of thousands in child support. Child support is at times used in lieu of, or in addition to, spousal support even though it is to be used for household expenses, particularly for the child. The child support Mel Gibson is ordered to pay would probably be used by Oksana for personal expeneses.
Unfortunately, the California law does not interfere with how the child support payments are to be used. Child custody is also major issue in this case. Mel Gibson recently filed a declaration stating that Oksana’s declaration in support of custody of the child was based on fraud as it was full of misrepresentations. I do not know if there was already a child custody order in place but Mel Gison sought to vacate her declaration. The honorable Scott Gordon in department 88 is usually assigned to these high profile cases that entail large financial assets and income. He was also assigned to the McCourt case (Dodgers owner) where the wife, who was a family law attorney, contested that she did not understand the prenuptial agreement. The amount of money in controversy in that case was very large.