Filed 9/28/26 Marriage of Shayan CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re the Marriage of ZOHREH B333844
MCINTYRE and SHAHRIYAR (Los Angeles County
SHAYAN. Super. Ct. No. SD025162)
ZOHREH MCINTYRE
SHAYAN et al.,
Respondents,
v.
SHAHRIYAR SHAYAN,
Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Michael J. Convey, Judge. Affirmed.
Shahriyar Shayan, in pro. per.; Law Offices of William W.
Oxley and William W. Oxley for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent Zohreh McIntyre Shayan.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant
Attorney General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Ricardo
Enriquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent Los Angeles
County Child Support Services Department.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Shahriyar Shayan appeals from the order denying his
request for equitable credits under Jackson v. Jackson (1975)
51 Cal.App.3d 363 (Jackson), commonly referred to as Jackson
credits, for the period of time when he claims he had primary
physical custody of his children.1 In denying the request, the trial
court found that Shahriyar was not entitled to equitable relief in
the form of Jackson credits because he failed to provide credible
evidence of his income and the expenses he allegedly incurred
when the children were in his care, and he paid little to no child
support for a number of years when the children were primarily
in the care of their mother. We conclude the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Shahriyar’s request for Jackson
credits, and accordingly, affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. November 2008 child support order
Shahriyar and Zohreh McIntyre Shayan are the divorced
parents of two children, Layla and Shane, both of whom are now
adults. In 2007, Zohreh filed a petition for dissolution of the
marriage. In November 2008, the family court ordered Shahriyar
to pay Zohreh $1,381 per month in child support based on his
income and a 35 percent timeshare with the children. The court
ordered Shahriyar and Zohreh to equally split any expenses
1
As is customary in family law proceedings, we refer to the
parties by their first names.
2
pertaining to the children’s extracurricular activities, health
insurance, and unreimbursed medical bills.
2. November 2011 move away order
In November 2011, the family court granted Zohreh’s
request to move with the children from Los Angeles to the United
Kingdom. The order provided that Zohreh would continue to
have primary physical custody of the children, and Shahriyar
would have visitation. Jurisdiction over any custody or support
matters would remain in Los Angeles Superior Court. To
facilitate Shahriyar’s visitation with the children, the order
required Zohreh’s attorney to set up a Travel Trust Account
(TTA) that would be funded with an initial $2,500 contribution
made by Zohreh and then with the child support payments made
by Shahriyar. To cover Shahriyar’s legal expenses in the event
Zohreh sought to change jurisdiction, the order also required
Zohreh’s attorney to set up a Jurisdiction Trust Account (JTA)
that would be funded with the child support arrears owed by
Shahriyar through October 2011. Neither the TTA nor the JTA
was ever established by Zohreh’s attorney, or funded with any
child support payments or arrears owed by Shahriyar.
3. October 2019 requests for order regarding child
support
The children moved back to Los Angeles in July 2013,
followed by Zohreh two months later. According to Zohreh, upon
her return to Los Angeles, she and Shahriyar agreed to a 50/50
timeshare with the children. According to Shahriyar, when the
children returned in July 2013, they began residing almost
exclusively with him, and he paid for all of their expenses.
Neither party, however, sought an order modifying child custody
or support until several years later.
3
In October 2019, Shahriyar filed two requests for an order
(RFO) regarding child support. These RFO’s are not part of the
record on appeal. However, as described by the family court, the
RFO’s sought to modify Shahriyar’s child support obligation
going forward and to apply Jackson credits to past amounts due.
In January 2020, the court modified the child custody order to
provide that Zohreh would have a 95 percent timeshare with
Layla and 5 percent timeshare with Shane, and Shahriyar would
have a 95 percent timeshare with Shane and a 5 percent
timeshare with Layla. In April 2020, while Shahriyar’s October
2019 RFO’s were pending, Zohreh petitioned the court for a
determination of child support arrears owed by Shahriyar.
More than two years later, on May 3, 2022, Commissioner
Jeffrey W. Korn issued findings and recommendations on certain
pending matters in the case. Among other findings,
Commissioner Korn denied Shahriyar’s request to disentitle
Zohreh from collecting any child support arrears, but
recommended that Shahriyar receive a credit for expenses that
were supposed to be covered by the TTA during the time the
children resided in the United Kingdom. Commissioner Korn
also set the matter for trial on Shahriyar’s request for Jackson
credits.
After Shahriyar filed an objection to Commissioner Korn’s
findings and recommendations, the matter was set for a de novo
hearing before Judge Michael J. Convey.
4. December 2022 to April 2023 evidentiary hearing
Over a 10-day period between December 2022 and April
2023, Judge Convey held an evidentiary hearing on Shahriyar’s
October 2019 RFO’s regarding child support. The court first
heard testimony on whether there was an existing valid child
4
support order. After finding that the November 2008 child
support order was valid and remained in effect, the court then
heard extensive testimony regarding each parent’s income, paid
expenses, and custodial time with the children.
4.1. Zohreh’s testimony
Zohreh testified that the November 2008 child support
order was based on a 65 percent timeshare to Zohreh and
35 percent timeshare to Shahriyar. Although the order required
Shahriyar to pay $1,381 per month in child support, Zohreh did
not receive any child support payments between 2008 and 2019
except for a few tax intercepts totaling approximately $3,500.
When Zohreh moved with the children to the United Kingdom,
she incurred extracurricular and therapy expenses for the
children, but she did not ask Shahriyar to assist in paying for
them. During this time, Zohreh relied on loans from family
members to help support the children.
The children moved back to the United States in July 2013,
which was the start of Shahriyar’s summer timeshare with them.
Zohreh followed two months later in September 2013. Upon
Zohreh’s return, she and Shahriyar had an informal agreement
for a 50/50 timeshare in which they each had the children in their
care for one week at a time. When the children were with
Zohreh, she paid for their clothing, food, and other living
expenses.
The 50/50 timeshare arrangement continued as to both
children until about June 2016, when Layla began residing
primarily with Zohreh in Laguna Beach and Shane resided
primarily with Shahriyar in Los Angeles. From June 2016 until
June 2020, when Layla turned 18 years old, she had occasional
visits with Shahriyar but did not stay overnight in his home.
5
During this same four-year period, Shane stayed with Zohreh two
weekends per month in addition to his summer, winter, and
spring breaks. Although the January 2020 child custody order
reduced Zohreh’s timeshare with Shane to 5 percent, her actual
timeshare with Shane was approximately 35 percent in 2020 and
2021, and 20 percent in 2022. Shahriyar paid for the children’s
health insurance, but did so inconsistently and cancelled their
insurance in 2020, after which the children received coverage
through the Medi-Cal program.
Zohreh testified that her current monthly income was
$3,741 and that her monthly rent was $3,480. She admitted that,
between 2019 and 2020, she received several large deposits to her
bank account from family and friends, which totaled $158,000.
4.2. Shahriyar’s testimony
Shahriyar testified that, before the children moved with
Zohreh to the United Kingdom, he had custody of them every
Tuesday and Thursday, and four weekends per month. While the
children were residing in the United Kingdom, Shahriyar had
three visits with them, and he spent about $10,000 on travel
expenses. In early 2013, Shahriyar and Zohreh discussed a
potential return to the United States, and they agreed that the
children would reside with Shahriyar until Zohreh got situated.
Shahriyar denied that their agreement was for a 50/50
timeshare.
When Zohreh moved back to the United States in 2013, her
time with the children was limited to weekends because she lived
in a studio apartment that lacked sufficient beds for the children
to stay with her overnight. Between July 2013 and September
2016, the children spent 90 percent of their time with Shahriyar
and 10 percent of their time with Zohreh. In September 2016,
6
Layla began residing with Zohreh in Laguna Beach where she
attended high school, and visiting Shahriyar on the weekends
and during her summer breaks. Since 2016, Zohreh has had a
90 percent timeshare with Layla and a 5 to 10 percent timeshare
with Shane.
Between July 2013 and September 2016, Shahriyar paid
for all the children’s expenses, including their health insurance
premiums, extracurricular activities, and private tutors.
Shahriyar estimated that he spent over $1,500 per month on the
children. During this period, Zohreh did not ask Shahriyar to
provide child support, nor did she offer to pay for any of the
children’s expenses. Because Shahriyar was exclusively covering
the children’s expenses, he did not believe he owed Zohreh any
child support payments. Shahriyar claimed he was seeking
Jackson credits for the period from 2013 (when the children
moved back to the United States) to October 2019 (when he filed
his RFO’s). However, Shahriyar did not have any invoices for the
amounts he spent on the children during this period because he
paid for their expenses with credit cards.
Shahriyar testified that, between 2013 and 2015, he owned
his own business and had an average monthly income of less than
$3,000. From 2016 to 2020, Shahriyar worked as a manager at a
business owned by his mother, and his monthly income was
$3,200. Shahriyar has not been employed since early 2020 and
has supported himself through unemployment insurance benefits
and other government relief. He denied having an interest in any
other businesses, including ones owned by his mother. He
admitted he owed his attorney $62,000, but could not recall
whether he paid any attorney fees between 2020 and 2022.
Shahriyar claimed he met the children’s expenses by carrying a
7
balance on his credit cards and accepting loans from family and
friends.
4.3. Third party witness testimony
Both Zohreh and Shahriyar called friends, neighbors, and
other associates to testify about the amount of time they spent
with the children. Shahriyar’s witnesses generally testified that
they often saw Shahriyar with the children, and only saw Zohreh
with the children on rare occasions. Zohreh’s witnesses testified
that they saw Zohreh with the children on a frequent basis.
Zohreh also called Shahriyar’s former business partner,
David Kazemi, as a witness. Kazemi testified that he became
business partners with Shahriyar in 2015, and that Shahriyar
used his mother’s name to purchase the business so that he could
avoid paying child support.
5. July 2023 order on Shahriyar’s RFO’s
On July 17, 2023, Judge Convey issued his findings and
order on Shahriyar’s two RFO’s regarding child support.
The court found that the November 2008 child support order
requiring Shahriyar to pay $1,381 per month was a valid and
enforceable order that remained in effect. The court further
found that Shahriyar had not complied with that order and paid
only $4,682.52 in child support as of October 2019, when he filed
the RFO’s. The court explained this lack of compliance was
significant because Shahriyar “now seeks to have several
thousand dollars as ‘Jackson credits’ applied when he only paid
$4,682.52 in support over a course of about eight years. That is
not fair. That is not equitable. If [Shahriyar] seeks this
equitable relief, he must come to the Court showing some good
faith effort to pay support. He did not do that. And that weighs
heavily against him on the issue of credibility. It weighs heavily
8
against the Court’s exercise of equitable discretion … on his
request for ‘Jackson credits.’ ” (Italics added.)
In assessing the credibility of the parties, the court found
that Shahriyar’s testimony about his income was not believable
and was completely inconsistent with his tax returns. The court
noted that Shahriyar’s “inconsistent testimony leads the Court to
find that [Shahriyar] may have been trying to ‘outsmart’ Zohreh
or the judge … to change his testimony as it suited him,” and that
adopting “these inconsistent positions reflects adversely on his
credibility.” The court further found that Shahriyar failed to
disclose his business interests because it was “not credible that
[Shahriyar] denies he has … an interest in a business property
and an interest in a family business, that is worth several
hundreds of thousands of dollars.” In addition, the court found
that it was “not credible that Zohreh lives in an apartment …
with rent that is about the same amount as her monthly income.”
For purposes of determining the parties’ respective incomes, the
court decided that their tax returns and income and expense
declarations were more reliable sources of evidence than their
testimony.
On Shahriyar’s request for a modification of the child
support order, the court found that a modification was proper
based on a change in the parties’ incomes and custodial time with
the children. The court ordered Zohreh to pay Shahriyar $190
per month in child support for the period from December 1, 2019
to June 30, 2020, based on the custody order awarding Zohreh a
95 percent timeshare with Layla and Shahriyar a 95 percent
timeshare with Shane. For the period from July 1, 2020 to
December 31, 2020, Zohreh was ordered to pay Shahriyar $404
per month in child support for Shane based on Zohreh’s actual
9
timeshare with Shane being 28 percent. Effective January 1,
2021, Zohreh’s child support obligation was reduced to $211 per
month. For extracurricular and medical expenses, the court
continued the prior order that the parents share them equally
and follow specific protocols for seeking reimbursement.
On Shahriyar’s request for Jackson credits, the court found
that Shahriyar was not entitled to receive such equitable credits
under the circumstances of this case. The court found that
Shahriyar did “not bring an equitable approach to the request”
because “[t]here was a long period of time during which child
support was not paid, or paid very minimally if at all, until the
time of [the] RFOs.” The court explained that “it is not equitable
to give credits when credit is not appropriate, that is, when credit
is not due with the support obligations being met in a minimal or
any, fashion.” The court further found that Shahriyar failed to
prove that he met his child support obligation by providing a
corresponding amount of actual in-home support for the children.
The court noted that Shahriyar’s testimony about his income was
“at odds with what his tax returns showed,” and that it did not
make sense that he “is able to meet his monthly expenses on the
minimal income he … testifies to, given that his rent obligation is
almost equal to his testimony as to his monthly income.” The
court also noted that Shahriyar’s failure to “track the expenses
that would comprise the request for Jackson credits … lends less
credibility to [his] case.” (Italics added.) Additionally, the court
found that the evidence showed that “the custodial timeshare was
not completely with [Shahriyar]” and that “there was
considerable timeshare with Zohreh from June 2020, to the
present.” Based on these findings, the court denied Shahriyar’s
10
request for Jackson credits to be applied against any child
support arrears that he owed.
Shahriyar filed a timely appeal from the court’s July 17,
2023 order. The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the
Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department, filed a
respondent’s brief to represent the public interest under Family
Code section 17406.
6. Request for judicial notice
Shahriyar requests that we take judicial notice of an order
issued by the family court during the pendency of his appeal as to
whether Zohreh had a community property interest in certain
real property. Because this order is not relevant to our resolution
of the appeal, we deny Shahriyar’s request. (See Coyne v. City
and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1215, 1223,
fn. 3 [denying judicial notice of documents that were not relevant
to dispositive issues]; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [same].)
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Shahriyar challenges the July 17, 2023 order
denying his request for Jackson credits against his child support
arrears. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Shahriyar’s request.
1. Governing law
We generally review an order granting or denying a request
for modification of child support for abuse of discretion. (In re
Marriage of Macilwaine (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 514, 527; In re
Marriage of Usher (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 347, 357.) In applying
this standard of review, “we consider only ‘whether the [trial]
court’s factual determinations are supported by substantial
evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its
11
discretion.’ [Citation.] ‘We do not substitute our judgment for
that of the trial court, but confine ourselves to determining
whether any judge could have reasonably made the challenged
order.’ ” (In re Marriage of Macilwaine, at p. 527.)
As a general rule, a trial court may not retroactively modify
a child support order. (See Fam. Code, §§ 3603, 3651, subd. (c).)
Thus, “a trial court has no discretion to absolve an obligor of
support arrearages, or interest thereon.” (In re Marriage of
Tavares (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 620, 626; accord, Stover v. Bruntz
(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 26.) However, “it is within the court’s
equitable power to deny enforcement of the arrears on equitable
grounds under certain circumstances.” (In re Marriage of Wilson
(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1016.) In particular, under a line of
cases beginning with Jackson, appellate courts have held that a
trial court has discretion to grant a credit against child support
arrears for a period during which the parent owing the arrears
effectively discharged the support obligation by caring for the
child in his or her own home. (Jackson, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d at
p. 368; accord, Helgestad v. Vargas (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 719,
735; In re Marriage of Trainotti (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1072,
1075; In re Marriage of Okum (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 176, 182.)
These credits are referred to as Jackson credits, after the first
case to recognize them. (Helgestad, at pp. 721–722.)
In Jackson, for instance, the father ceased paying child
support after the child began residing with him on a full-time
basis with the mother’s consent. (Jackson, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d
at p. 365.) The mother later obtained a writ of execution on child
support arrears for the time the child was living with the father,
and in response, the father sought an order quashing the writ of
execution or reimbursing him for the money he spent caring for
12
the child. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the father’s request on
the ground that it was an improper attempt to modify a prior
child support order. (Id. at pp. 365–366.) The appellate court
reversed, reasoning that “the trial court would have been well
within its discretion in … quashing the writ of execution or
permitting only partial enforcement on the basis that [the father]
had directly discharged his obligation or on the basis of equitable
considerations.” (Id. at p. 368.) The court noted that the child
began living with the father with the consent of the mother, and
the father expended amounts well in excess of his court-ordered
obligation in providing a home and support for the child. (Ibid.;
see also In re Marriage of Trainotti, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at
pp. 1075–1076 [“trial court erred by refusing to consider whether
appellant had satisfied his obligation by furnishing [the child],
with the approval of his former wife, a home and support that
was equal to or in excess of the court-ordered amount”].)
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Shahriyar’s Jackson credits request
In this case, the trial court acted within its discretion in
ruling that Shahriyar was not entitled to Jackson credits. As the
trial court recognized, an award of Jackson credits is a form of
equitable relief. The court found that equity did not support
Shahriyar’s request because he did not substantially comply with
his child support obligation for several years. On appeal,
Shahriyar argues this finding was “nonsensical” because in all
Jackson credits cases, the obligor is necessarily in arrears on his
or her child support payments. However, the trial court found
that Shahriyar failed to pay child support not only during the
period when the children allegedly were under his direct care
(2013 to 2019), but also during the period when the children were
13
primarily in the care of Zohreh (2008 to 2013). In particular, the
court found that the evidence “credibly showed that there were no
child support payments made, from February 2009 to May 2012,”
and that Shahriyar’s compliance with the existing child support
order “after that date was sporadic and inconsistent at best.”
Given Shahriyar’s lack of compliance with his child support
obligation during the years when the children were in Zohreh’s
care, the court reasonably found that Shahriyar was not entitled
to equitable relief.
In denying Shahriyar’s request for Jackson credits, the
trial court also reasonably found that Zohreh continued to have a
significant timeshare with the children during the period when
Shahriyar claimed that the children were in his care. Shahriyar
sought Jackson credits for the period from July 2013 (when the
children returned to the United States) through October 2019
(when Shahriyar filed the RFO’s). However, Zohreh testified
that, starting in September 2013, she and Shahriyar agreed to an
equal timeshare in which they each had the children for one week
at a time. According to Zohreh, this 50/50 timeshare continued
until June 2016, when Layla began living primarily with Zohreh
while Shane lived primarily with Shahriyar. Even after the June
2016 change in timeshare, Zohreh continued to have Shane two
weekends per month and during his winter, spring, and summer
breaks. Zohreh further testified that when the children were in
her care, she paid for their food, clothing, and other living
expenses. As the appellate court recognized in In re Marriage of
Okum, the obligor parent is not entitled to Jackson credits where
the other parent continues to provide the child with substantial
care and support. (In re Marriage of Okum, supra,
195 Cal.App.3d at p. 182 [father was not entitled to Jackson
14
credits where mother “had substantial custody of [child] and …
incurred expenses in raising him”].) While Shahriyar’s testimony
about each parent’s timeshare conflicted with that of Zohreh, it
was for the trial court to assess the credibility of the testimony
and resolve conflicts in the evidence. (Ibid.) The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that Zohreh’s continued care
and support of the children weighed against awarding Shahriyar
Jackson credits.
Moreover, the trial court reasonably found that Shahriyar
failed to provide sufficient evidence of his payment of childcare
expenses to support his request for Jackson credits. As the court
explained, although Shahriyar was not required to keep a
line-by-line accounting of the money he spent caring for the
children, he did need to “show actual in-home support for the
applicable period of time.” However, Shahriyar did not offer
evidence of his payment of the children’s expenses beyond his
own testimony, which the trial court found was not credible. The
court also found that Shahriyar’s testimony about his income
lacked credibility because it was at odds with his tax returns and
his claimed expenses. Shahriyar thus failed to show that he
satisfied his child support obligation by providing the children
with direct support that “was equal to or in excess of the
court-ordered amount.” (In re Marriage of Trainotti, supra,
212 Cal.App.3d at p. 1076.) The trial court accordingly did not
abuse its discretion in denying Shahriyar’s request for Jackson
credits.
Shahriyar’s remaining arguments on appeal likewise lack
merit. In his appellate brief, Shahriyar appears to challenge
Commissioner Korn’s May 3, 2022 recommended order, finding
that Zohreh was not disentitled from enforcing the child support
15
arrears owed by Shahriyar. As the Attorney General correctly
asserts, Commissioner Korn’s recommended order was not a
final, appealable order, and it was superseded by the July 17,
2023 order issued by Judge Convey following the de novo hearing
on Shahriyar’s October 2019 RFO’s. (See Fam. Code, § 4251,
subd. (c) [where there is a timely objection to a commissioner’s
recommended order, a de novo hearing is held before a regularly
appointed judge].) The only appealable order that is properly
before this court is the July 17, 2023 order.
Shahriyar also appears to contend that, in issuing the
July 17, 2023 order, Judge Convey erred by failing to award
Shahriyar credits for the children’s extracurricular and medical
expenses as well as the travel expenses that he incurred when
the children were residing in the United Kingdom. The record
reflects that the issues before Judge Convey on Shahriyar’s
October 2019 RFO’s were whether Shahriyar was entitled to
Jackson credits for the period from July 2013 to October 2019
when the children were purportedly in his care, and to a
modification of his child support obligation from October 2019
forward. In denying the request for Jackson credits, the trial
court found that Shahriyar failed to provide credible evidence of
the amounts that he allegedly spent on the children’s expenses
during the applicable time period. To the extent Shahriyar is
now claiming that he also should have been awarded credits for
expenses incurred prior to July 2013, he did not request that
relief at the lengthy evidentiary hearing before Judge Convey.
Prior to issuing the July 17, 2023 order, Judge Convey also held
two additional hearings with the parties to address any disputes
over the scope and language of the order. There is no indication
that Shahriyar asked the court to provide him with additional
16
credits for unreimbursed extracurricular, medical, or travel
expenses in determining the amount owed in child support
arrears. On this record, Shahriyar has failed to demonstrate
error in the trial court’s July 17, 2023 ruling.
DISPOSITION
The July 17, 2023 order is affirmed. Respondent
Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department shall
recover its costs on appeal.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
WILEY, J.
17