Summer—and a contentious divorce—is heating up for Yellowstone actor Kevin Costner and his wife Christine Baumgartner. Earlier this month, the actor was issued a temporary order to pay his wife, the full-time caregiver of the parties’ three children, a total of $129,755 per month in child support.
Reports of the court order raised a number of eyebrows, although this figure is only a little more than half of the calculated guideline amount—$217,300—under California law. Some ask, “what do those kids eat?” knowing that not even the children of the richest celebrities are eating gold-laced cereal for breakfast. Others point out the inevitable windfall to Christine.
A six-figure monthly support award is an undeniably large sum. However, a child support award is not inherently too high solely because it exceeds the children’s basic needs, nor because it may indirectly benefit the recipient parent. The divorce between Costner and Baumgartner is being litigated in California, where, like Illinois, the law sets forth principles to be followed by a court in applying statutory child support guidelines. While the guideline calculation formulas differ between states, both have adopted the following principles:
First, a child support award can exceed the children’s monthly expenses if the award will prevent a disparity in the standard of living the children enjoy with separate parents.
Among other principles to be followed by California courts, subsection (g) of Section 4053 of the California Family Code sets forth that a child support award “should minimize significant disparities in the children’s living standards in the two homes” when both parents have “high levels of responsibility for the children.” While a custody determination remains pending, Costner’s seven-figure gross monthly income compared to Baumgartner’s zero income is a paradigm case of “significant disparities” applicable under the statute.
Relevant case law supports this principle. In Y.R. v. A.F., 9 Cal.App.5th 974 (2017), the appellate court reversed the trial court’s downward deviation from the guideline, citing an established case law that defines a child’s “needs” to exceed “necessities” when a parent is wealthy and can provide them with more. California public policy stresses that the support guidelines exist to prioritize children in accordance with their parents’ ability to provide for them financially.
In Costner’s case, the children’s “normal” is lavish, which the court was required to consider when issuing a temporary order. A reduction in their standard of living could have a number of consequences, including a further disrupted childhood for a divorce they had no role in.
Second, a child support award may indirectly increase the standard of living of the spouse receiving the award for the benefit of the children, and that’s okay.
In California, subsection (f) of Section 4053 states that “Child support may . . . appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.” Christine, as caregiver, may benefit from the funds awarded to her children, but the law considers the preservation of the children’s lifestyle to take priority over the prevention of any incidental benefit to the recipient parent.
Illinois law is substantially the same.
Section 505(a)(2)(C) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (“IMDMA”) requires that courts consider “the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage or civil union not been dissolved . . ..” In re Keon C., 344 Ill.App.3d 1137, 1142 (2003) is a popular example. In this case, the court stated that “[a] child is not expected to have to live at a minimum level of comfort while the noncustodial parent is living a life of luxury.” The significant income disparity between the parties warranted a child support award consistent with the statutory guidelines, even though the child’s mother would likely receive windfall benefits. Costner’s obligation makes sense—it’s another example of a high-income earner paying their spouse with comparatively little to no income to maintain the children’s lifestyle. If the parties had similar earnings, the outcome would likely have been far different.
The moral of the story is that the child support laws of both California and Illinois are constructed to minimize the changes experienced by the children of divorce, and they require judges to consider a number of factors in calculating fair, reasonable, and consistent awards. The children of Costner and Baumgartner were born into wealth, and the law supports child support awards in excess of basic needs when doing so will equalize standards of living between households and minimize any disruptions caused by the split.
Thomas T. Field, Equity Partner
For more information on Mr. Field, please visit:
www.beermannlaw.com/team/thomas-t-field.
