Does the contention that the provision that the payment of child support was to be subject to the approval of the court establish that the payments were not alimony?

The contention that the provision that the payments were to be subject to the approval of the court establishes that [47 Cal.2d 281] they were alimony is likewise without merit. Thus the parties had expressly recognized that any agreement affecting the interests of their child was subject to the approval of the court, and since the monthly payments were to be made for the support of both plaintiff and the child, it was appropriate that a provision for court approval should be included. The fact that the parties recognized that they could not by their agreement control the court's power to make orders for the support of their child in no way conflicts with their clearly expressed intention that as between themselves their agreement should be final and conclusive. See, Puckett v. Puckett, 21 Cal.2d 833, 839, 842-843, 136 P.2d 1. That this was their understanding is further indicated by the fact that when a modification was desired by decedent and agreed to by plaintiff, it was negotiated pursuant to paragraph 19, which provided that the agreement could only be modified 'by a written agreement for that purpose.'