It is not a testimentary trust because the trust was settled long before the decedent's death. I do think I know more facts since I talked to her by phone sometime ago.
Again, you are confusing with definitions. I cannot comment on laws in other states even if I know them but here in California, trust and estate are separate things. See CA prob code 353. Please see Perry as well. The fact a trust is part of estate planning does not make it part of estate. You should understand several things under California law. One, a trust is not part of estate. Second, family code allows a judge to consider incomes from ANY sources. Three, a family court judge has a lot of discretions to make a judgment reasonable and equitable. For example, in the 2004 case Ventura DCSS v Jeffery Brown as trustee, the court compelled the trustee to pay for child support by overriding the trust, particularly the spendthrift clause. Finally, Perry and subsequent cases made it clear that even though trust is not part of estate the court would consider it as part of "estate" to calculate child support.
So there is no doubt the current trustee would have to follow the procedure in prob code 19001, to modify child support, or face 10% interest per annum. On the other hand, the CP can petition the court as well but the statutory of limitation is one year, which may be passed already.
The only argument point in this case is that the child is also the beneficiary of the trust. To pay child support out of this trust would be like to ask the child to support herself. However, it may sound ridiculous but this is the law in California, according to the court in Lakenan v Lakenan.
