M filed a complaint to establish that F is the father of her child, born out of wedlock in January 1993, and for child support. M stated that she had a monthly net disposable income of $400 and expenses of $7,627 per month. She sought support from F, whom she claimed to be 'one of the most successful real estate agents in the entire Los Angeles area.' F admitted paternity but declared that he recently suffered substantial losses due to the downturn in the real estate market and the Northridge earthquake. His income and expense statement indicated an 'average monthly cash flow deficit of $42,532.' F's evidence placed his 'living expenses' at $31,457 a month. M submitted the declaration of a certified public account who, based on an examination of F's business records, concluded that F's net worth was over $ 11 million, that his living expenses were $80,390 per month, and that he had $116,256 'cash available for support' each month. The accountant calculated F's monthly support obligation under the uniform guidelines at $14,617. (The child was 18 months old at the time). The court stated that it would find F to have an 'extraordinarily high income,' thus removing the support award from the uniform child support guidelines. M testified that she did not graduate from high school. She is not employed and is studying to get a real estate license. She owns a house that she rents out and lives with her child in a 600-square-foot apartment which is next to a busy highway. M argued that her child was entitled to be supported in a manner that reflected the lifestyle of his father. F argued that a monthly award of $1,500, with an additional $500 per month into a blocked account for college expenses, would meet the child's present actual needs, especially since he is not yet in school or involved in other activities. The trial court awarded monthly child support of $1,750, with an additional $400 per month for one-half of M's child care expenses, for a total of $2,150. An additional $750 per month was ordered to be deposited into a blocked interest-bearing account to pay for the child's college or post-college education. F was also ordered to provide medical insurance for the child and a life insurance policy on himself naming the child as the beneficiary. M appealed.