San Diego Divorce Attorney Blog

Victims of domestic violence in San Diego could face a situation that may be even more worrisome than threats from an abusive family member - that is, the inability to receive the necessary and immediate protection via the court system. According to a recent article appearing in The Sacramento Bee, the possibility of reducing funding to state courts means that the services will be cut back or eliminated. For victims of domestic violence, this creates an unthinkable dilemma: what if the courts, due to limited hours or possibly even closures, are unable to process a request for a restraining order in a timely manner, to ensure their immediate safety and protection? Domestic violence is a serious offense, one that requires prompt attention. If you or someone you know is involved in a domestic violence situation, it is important to contact an experienced family law attorney as soon as possible.

In California, domestic violence involves abuse or threats of abuse where the people involved have been in an intimate relationship, including those who are married, domestic partners, are dating or dated in the past, or live or lived together, or have a child together. Courts will also consider the abuse or related threats to be domestic violence if the abuser and the abused person are closely related by blood or by marriage.

The abuse can be manifested in many ways, such as: physically hurting or attempting to hurt someone, either with intent or in a reckless manner; sexual assault; threats of harm that make someone reasonably afraid that they will be seriously injured; or such menacing behavior as harassing, stalking, threatening, or hitting someone; possibly even disturbing someone's peace; or destroying another's personal property. It is also important to realize that abuse extends beyond physical actions -- it includes verbal, emotional, or psychological tactics as well.

Victims of such abuse may petition a local court for a domestic violence restraining order. This is a court order that helps to protect people from abuse or threats of abuse from someone they have a close relationship with. Victims who go to court to find some protection and relief need to know they will receive a rapid response with meaningful assistance. According to the article referenced above, it was typical for a court to attempt to process a temporary restraining order on the same day it was filed. Sometimes the abused person in a potentially explosive relationship cannot wait until the next day for help. Data indicates that victims are at a greater risk of being stalked, assaulted or even killed in the weeks immediately after moving out of the home or filing for separation or divorce.

A restraining order can require that the abuser stay away from you and your children and possibly other relatives, as well as require the person to comply with child support payments and to follow any child custody and visitation orders. It can be a life-saving tool for many people. Hopefully, the lawmakers will consider the vital needs of victims who rely on the courts for practical assistance.

Continue reading "Reduction of Court Services in California Could Pose Risks for Victims of Domestic Violence" »

Going through a divorce has been described as one of the most difficult times in a person's life. In order to lessen the stress and expense, divorcing couples in San Diego may request that the court order a settlement conference with the intention of resolving any outstanding matters in dispute. By doing so, the parties may be able to avoid taking their case to trial. Under California Law, the court also has the authority to order one or more mandatory conferences on its own motion, if doing so would serve to move the case along more efficiently. Only an experienced San Diego Family Law attorney can help you to navigate a process steeped in local rules and procedures.

In what may not be such a big surprise, Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian are encountering another little hurdle in their very public divorce proceeding. According to a recent news article, Mr. Humphries failed to show up at a recent mandatory settlement hearing with a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles. It has been reported that the judge was not happy about Humphries' absence at the conference and scheduled another hearing to determine whether he should be penalized for not appearing. One reporter said the judge believed Humphries was "mocking" the entire court system by failing to appear. In addition to that hearing, the court ordered a new date for the settlement discussions in the hopes that this time Humphries will attend. The trial is still scheduled for May 6.

The Superior Court in San Diego provides a great deal of information on its website for parties who are pursuing a settlement conference. At this hearing, a judge -- or perhaps a volunteer attorney -- helps the parties by reviewing the case and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. The ultimate purpose is to encourage the parties to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. At this point, the judge (or volunteer attorney) would not have the authority to make any decisions or orders in the case. Often, a mandatory settlement conference is held close to the parties' trial date, giving them one last opportunity to resolve their differences before spending the time and money to endure a trial.

Before the parties attend the settlement conference, they are expected to exchange a "good faith" settlement demand and offer. The attorneys representing the parties must be fully familiar with the case and have complete authority to negotiate and settle the matter.

The Humphries/Kardashian case is interesting because he wants the marriage annulled while she is seeking a traditional divorce, despite the fact that they were married for only 72 days. Humphries has alleged that the marriage was based on fraud, claiming that Kardashian only married him because of her reality show, "Keeping up With The Kardashians".

While the Humphries/Kardashian divorce proceeding has been so extensively reported on, with paparazzi and reporters cramming the courthouse, many of the issues they are facing occur in a great deal of divorce cases. A divorce proceeding and settlement conference can be a relatively smooth process with the help of a dedicated and experienced attorney

Continue reading "Kris Humphries Fails to Show Up at Court Settlement Conference with Kim Kardashian" »

Children in California's foster care system used to "age out" of the system automatically upon reaching the age of eighteen, abruptly ending their access to services. Young adults found themselves turned loose without necessarily having the means or the skills to thrive in the adult world. California passed the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (CFCSA) to correspond to a federal statute and allow "nonminor dependents" to continue in the foster system long enough to acquire the means to join society. A California appellate court recently considered how to apply the definition of "nonminor dependent" in the case of a child who turned eighteen while in the system. In re K.L., No. D061577, slip op. (Cal. App. 4th, Oct. 25, 2012).

The CFCSA became effective on January 1, 2012. Juvenile courts may maintain dependency over qualifying individuals who have turned eighteen but not yet turned twenty-one. The California Welfare and Institutions Code defines a "nonminor dependent" in § 11400(v) as someone who turned eighteen while in a foster care placement under county or Indian tribal jurisdiction; who was eighteen years old or younger on January 1, 2012; and who is involved in a "transitional independent living case plan."

The case before the court involved K.L., a child who turned eighteen in September 2011. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the "Agency") had filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(d) based on allegations that her father had sexually abused her. The Agency removed her from her father's home in September 2010, claiming that K.L.'s mother knew she was not safe in her father's home, but had moved out three months earlier. The court declared K.L. a dependent child and ordered reunification services for the mother.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Definition of a "Nonminor Dependent" Under California Law" »

The California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District reversed an order awarding sole custody of a child to the mother. The court ruled in In re Marriage of Adams, Case No. G045920, slip op. (Cal. App. 4th, Oct. 16, 2012), that a court-appointed expert witness displayed bias against the father and in favor of the mother that unduly influenced the remainder of the proceedings.

The parties' son, identified as J., was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder, when he was very young. By all accounts J. is a very intelligent child, and both parents care for him very much. The parents have differing views on the best way to care for him, however. When J.'s parents divorced in 2008, they agreed to submit future disputes regarding J. to a licensed mental health professional who would act as a special master. If either parent disagreed with the special master's recommendation, they could petition the court. The parents shared joint custody of J., with a schedule of visitation periods.

A disagreement regarding where J. should attend middle school arose in 2010. The parties eventually agreed to the appointment of David J. Jimenez as an expert witness, pursuant to California Education Code § 730, to conduct psychological evaluations of J. and the parents, in order to make a recommendation as to custody and school enrollment. Jimenez recommended that J. attend school in the Laguna Beach Unified School District, the mother's preference.

Continue reading "Child Custody Order Reversed Based on Evidence of Court-Appointed Expert Witness' Bias" »

A husband appealed pendente lite orders terminating spousal support and declining to modify child support in a divorce matter. In re Marriage of Freitas, No. D060281, slip op. (Cal. App. 4th, Oct. 3, 2012). The trial court entered orders awarding child support to the wife and spousal support to the husband. It later declined to modify the child support order, holding that a recent precedent decision prohibited it from doing so, but it terminated the wife's child support obligation, citing the husband's prior conviction for domestic violence. On appeal, the husband argued that both decisions constituted error. The appellate court affirmed the spousal support order and remanded the child support order.

Christine and Kevin Freitas separated in March 2010 after more than eighteen years of marriage. The couple have two children, who were thirteen and nine at the time of the separation. The wife filed for divorce in April 2010. The husband filed an order to show cause (OSC) that August requesting spousal support and child support. The wife opposed a spousal support order, informing the court that the husband had an October 2006 conviction for battery against her, and that in July 2010, the court entered a domestic violence restraining order against the husband. After a hearing on the OSC in October 2010, the court awarded the husband $800 per month in spousal support while the divorce was pending, and awarded the wife $7 per month in child support. The court reserved jurisdiction to modify the support awards for September and October, giving the husband until January 4, 2011 to present additional evidence of her income.

Continue reading "Modification of Spousal and Child Support Orders During Pending Divorce Litigation Reviewed by California Appellate Court" »

The issue of confidentiality of financial records in a divorce matter recently came before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The court affirmed a lower court's order unsealing the documents in a man's post-divorce proceeding against his ex-wife, in which he alleges that she breached confidentiality provisions in their pre-nuptial agreement. After one judge initially sealed the pleadings, a different judge unsealed them, citing the public's interest in open judicial proceedings. The appellate court affirmed this decision in France v. France, No. COA12-284, slip op. (N.C. App., Dec. 31, 2012).

The plaintiff, Brian France, was married to and divorced the defendant, Megan France, on two separate occasions. Their second marriage, which began in December 2007, included a pre-nuptial agreement. In exchange for certain financial benefits in the event of divorce, the defendant agreed to keep any financial information in her possession about the plaintiff confidential, unless she was compelled by law to disclose such information. Breach of the confidentiality provisions, according to the pre-nuptial agreement, would constitute a material breach creating a cause of action for damages.

The couple separated in 2008. While the details of their divorce were kept confidential, statements made on the record in court indicated that the plaintiff, who is the chief executive officer of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), would pay the defendant $9 million, as well as child support of $10,000 per month and alimony, for a period of ten years, of $32,000 per month.

Continue reading "Court Upholds Order Unsealing Pleadings in NASCAR CEO's Divorce Matter" »

A San Diego father appealed a superior court ruling in a juvenile dependency case that denied him reunification with his two sons. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed In re A.G., et al and affirmed the superior court's ruling. It held that California law required the superior court, given the circumstances of the case, to deny services to the father, and that the father failed to meet his burden of proof that reunification would be in his sons' best interests.

The appellant, Hugo G., is the presumed father of four children, two sons and two daughters. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (HHS) filed dependency petitions for all four children in October 2011. At that time, the two sons were eight and three years old, and the daughters were eleven years and nine months old, respectively. The dependency petition alleged that Hugo sexually abused the older daughter, A.G., in January 2010. HHS asserted jurisdiction over the other three children on the grounds that a sibling had been abused.

An amended petition, filed by HHS in November 2011, alleged that Hugo physically abused A.G. and the two sons beginning in September 2010. The court denied Hugo's request for reunification services, including a child abuse class, but ordered them for the children's mother. Hugo appealed the superior court's denial of reunification services only as to the two sons.

Continue reading "Reunification with Children Denied for California Father Because of Abuse Allegations" »

The change of a former spouse's name is an often-overlooked issue in divorce. While anyone of any gender may request a name change, it applies particularly to women who take their husband's name upon marriage, but then want to go back to a previous name during or after a divorce. California law makes the process of returning to a previous or maiden name rather straightforward, but a name change requires further steps to ensure that the new or changed name is used consistently in all of a person's identifying information.

Traditionally, a person has been able to change their name simply by publicly using a different name. This is commonly known as the "usage method," although it has many limitations and has fallen out of favor as government requires more and more documentation to prove identification. Minors and convicted felons, for example, must obtain official documentation in order to change their name. Various government agencies require proof of identification as a means to prevent fraud, deter crime, or even pursuant to anti-terrorism statutes. For this reason, it is usually preferable to obtain a court order for a name change.

California law allows a spouse, usually the wife in a marriage, to petition the court during the divorce to change her name to her maiden name, or to another last name she has previously used. After a divorce is finalized, a woman may decide to go back to a previous name, and she can do so by petitioning a California court.

Continue reading "Name Changes After a California Divorce" »

The Supreme Court of South Dakota recently upheld a lower court's ruling terminating the parental rights of a California man, identified as M.A.S., finding that the state's efforts to reunite the child with the father were not successful and that termination is in the child's best interest. The case involved a complicated intersection of state and federal legal systems.

South Dakota's Department of Social Services (SDDSS) removed the child from the mother's home, while the father lived in California. The Golden State's Department of Social Services (CDSS) reportedly monitored the father's progress on court-ordered services. The federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) also played a role in the case because both the mother and the child are members of Montana's Fort Peck Sioux Tribe.

According to the court's ruling, SDDSS took the child, identified as P.S.E., into custody in June 2009, shortly after her first birthday. The mother identified M.A.S., who lived in California, as the father. He said that he did not know he had a child until SDDSS contacted him. The mother admitted to neglect of the child at an adjudicatory hearing, and her rights were later terminated with no appeal.

The trial court found that M.A.S. had not provided P.S.E. with "care and support", but through no fault of his own. SDDSS told the court at M.A.S.'s adjudicatory hearing that its goal was to eventually place the child with the father.

Continue reading "Court Upholds Termination of California Man's Parental Rights" »

Divorce is often a messy and emotional ordeal, and it can bring out the worst in some people. When a couple has built up a substantial marital estate, one spouse can do considerable damage in a moment of anger, perhaps seeking a sense of revenge or just a moment of "victory." Actions like running up a credit card bill, emptying a bank account, or even withholding child support or visitation with a child may offer some momentary satisfaction, but ultimately only hurt everyone involved. California law provides some protection against such actions, but a person going into a divorce can also take steps to protect themselves against the potential vindictiveness of a soon-to-be ex-spouse.

When a person files a petition to dissolve a marriage in California, the law immediately imposes an Automatic Temporary Restraining Order (ATRO) that protects the parties, their children, and their property while the case is pending. The ATRO applies equally to both parties, and it remains in effect until the court enters a final judgment or another order terminating or modifying the ATRO, or until the parties dismiss the divorce suit.

An ATRO prohibits both parties from removing their child or children from the state without either the other spouse's permission or a court order. It prohibits them from selling or otherwise disposing of any property, whether that property belongs to the marital community or is owned separately by one spouse. It also prohibits the spouses from incurring any indebtedness or pledging any property as collateral. Spouses cannot change the beneficiary designations on any insurance policies without consent, nor can they cash in any policies. They also cannot close or substantially draw down any bank accounts.

The spouses are allowed to spend money, incur debts, or transfer property if it is strictly necessary for living expenses or divorce-related attorneys' fees. They are also permitted to make modifications to their wills, since most divorcing spouses would probably want to make a few changes as to whom they designate as an heir. Violations of these prohibitions could result in a contempt order from the court, with all of the potential penalties that carries.

Continue reading "Guarding Against Property Destruction in a California Divorce" »

The latest chapter in perhaps one of the strangest paternity disputes in recent California history comes with the arrest of Robert Powell in San Diego County over Thanksgiving weekend. The arrest, in one sense, gave Powell an opportunity to insert himself into the recent paternity dispute involving pop signer Justin Bieber. Mariah Yeater, a 20 year-old Lakeside resident, publicly claimed that Bieber is the father of her child. Powell now claims that he is the father, and that Yeater lied about the child's paternity for money.

Bieber has steadfastly denied not only being the child's father, but even knowing Yeater at all. Yeater filed a lawsuit claiming Bieber is the father of her child a few months ago, but withdrew it without prejudice in November. She alleges that she had a sexual encounter with Bieber backstage at Los Angeles' Staples Center after a concert last fall. Yeater says she had just turned 19 years old at the time. Bieber would have been 16 years old. The child was born in July 2011.

Yeater did not produce any evidence to substantiate any of her claims, but Bieber submitted to a paternity test. She dismissed the suit while results were still pending. Yeater cited the media frenzy surrounding her claims, which includes death threats from Bieber fans, led to her decision to withdraw her petition. Her lawyer stated that he expects both sides will sign confidentiality agreements regarding the paternity test. Since she dismissed her suit without prejudice, she is free to re-file it at any time.

Yeater's paternity claims have mostly met with ridicule and disdain, but it appears Bieber has followed the standard legal procedure. If Yeater was unmarried when the child was conceived and born, the law makes no presumption as to the father's identity. She may allege the father's identity, or someone claiming to be the father may come forward. A child's paternity, if in dispute, is generally established through a paternity test, which compares DNA samples from the child and the alleged father. A father may also sign a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, or whatever equivalent form is used in his state, which he then files with a state registry. In this case, Powell may request his own paternity test. Once paternity is legally established, questions of child custody and child support come to the fore.

Continue reading "Possible Father of Alleged "Bieber Baby" Located in San Diego" »

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I am involved in the family court system every work day. Change is a part of life and tremendous changes are now occurring in the San Diego divorce court. It is the job of my office to recognize the trends in family law and to work with the changes in the system to assist our clients. Journalist and TV personality Greta Van Susteren posted an article on 8/20/11 as to the California economy (mismanaged and disastrous) and used the California divorce court system to support her conclusions.

Greta's divorce court example was taken from a Wall Street Journal news report written by journalist David Ferry and published on August 20, 2011. He described the efforts of a California family going through a divorce and seeking to use the free services offered at the court house. The Husband and Wife lined up at 9 a.m. and by 4:00 p.m., when the free clinic stopped their services, the couple had still not been seen or helped by a court facilitator. These two articles are not blaming the courts, the attorney, facilitators or judges. They both use this example of the near bankrupt status of the California economy and charge those who are in charge of the economy with negligence to a degree that there are millions of victims impacted by the reduction in government services.

In recent years the California divorce system used a quasi fast track policy to push family law cases through the court in 12 months. Today, with cut backs to court personnel, loss of judges, fewer clerks, it is projected that it may take two years to get a divorce case to trial. It may take months to get into court to hear an initial child custody motion. Months--what a disaster. San Diego Family Court judges each have case loads of 4,000 and more. An extremely difficult situation. A family law "mission impossible". My office is turning more and more to private judging as a way to assist our clients.

Continue reading "San Diego Divorce Analysis: How to Navigate the Family Court System" »

A commonly asked question in California is "how much does a California divorce cost"? Many times in answering this question one must consider "who has the burden of proof"? Wikipedia defines legal burden of proof through different examples and Latin phrases and also states that the person who does not have the burden of proof is assumed, by law, to have the winning side of the case. In other words, the person who does not have the burden of proof does not have to say or do anything in court unless the other party meets his or her burden of proof. These rules applies to property division and other family law issues.

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist lawyer, my research came across a case that addresses the question of burden of proof; and that case is Marriage of Margulis. You may read the case decision here. Inspired by the facts of the Margulis case, consider this example in order to see the role of burden of proof in a San Diego family court trial: Husband and Wife were married for 10 years. At the date of separation Husband disclosed that he had stock and financial accounts, under his name, with a value of $900,000. For many reasons, the case does not go to trial for two more years. At trial Husband claim that the $900,000 is now down to $150,000.

He says that $750,000 is gone by virtue of the downturn in the market, and money he gave to Wife for support as well as paying off marital debts; but Husband fails to bring documents to court to prove all of this. Wife's attorney at trial simply shows the evidence of the $900,000 in stock and financial accounts as they existed at the date of separation and states that Wife requests that Husband pay her $450,000. The attorney cites the presumption that funds acquired during the marriage are presumed to be community property. The attorney shows that Husband was the spouse managing these accounts and argues that the Husband has failed to show any evidence accounting for the loss of these funds. (Divorce evidence takes many forms. See video below.)

Continue reading "San Diego Divorce Evidence: Burden of Proof" »

Journalist Megan Johnson of the Boston Herald reports that Arnold Schwarzenegger filed an amended divorce petition on or about July 25, 2011 under which places the issue of his Wife's spousal support before the California divorce court. Previously, his petition stated that Maria Shriver should be denied any right to spousal support. There can be no question that this was a significant change as every news reporting agency picked up this story. As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney I want to raise the question of why Arnold Schwarzenegger changed his pleadings.

With a La Jolla divorce office, we handle spousal support issues in ordinary cases as well as high income cases. As to why Arnold Schwarzenegger would change his petition lets first consider whether he initially committed a mistake in the typing of his divorce petition. Divorce litigants, especially self represented litigants, commonly make mistakes in their divorce pleadings. My office took over a case last week from a self represented litigant (formerly known as a "pro per" litigant) and found a significant mistake on the petition that would have resulted in a significant waiver of legal rights. However, it is unlikely that Arnold Schwarzenegger's high priced and highly specialized divorce attorney made a mistake.

So next we turn to the reason of strategy (or, political correctness) as the explanation. Do you remember just a few weeks ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger's Wife, Maria Shriver, was found walking on the Santa Monica beach by the paparazzi? And similarly, when Sandra Bullock was found by the paparazzi walking alone in the mountains? Walking alone in an area of great natural beauty signifies humility and one reflecting on his/her life and the eternal lessons to be learned in going forward. It shows great inner strength and morality; even a spiritual side to the person. The opposite of this would be a celebrity who surrounds oneself in gaudy selfish displays such as riding in a chauffeured limousine to a ridiculously expensive bar or night club while in the midst of a divorce. These cases do get publicity as seen by the video below.

Continue reading "California Divorce News: Schwarzenegger Spousal Support Strategy" »

As a San Diego Certified Family Law Specialist attorney, my family law office frequently receives questions as to child custody evaluations. What are custody evaluations? How are they conducted? Is a custody evaluation the same as a 730 child custody evaluation? A "730" evaluation comes from the reference to the California Evidence Code, Section 730 which you can see here. There are times in family law cases where an expert is needed to evaluate the facts either for one party or for the court.

Since my office extensively handles child custody cases, I have been involved in child custody evaluations for decades. I want to work with an evaluator who is fair, impartial, open minded and will bring to the case specialized knowledge that will help to explain what is going on in a particular case, and what parenting schedule is in the best interest of a child. In my first decade of my family law practice I worked with many psychologists who qualified in the San Diego Superior Court as expert child custody evaluators. One of these evaluators was Stephen Doyne, Ph.D. This psychologist quickly became a favorite by both the family law attorneys and the San Diego Superior Court judges.

However, do not underestimate how emotional child custody evaluations can become. In one such evaluation, one parent of a child who was the subject of a custody evaluation, in which Dr. Doyne was involved, reportedly took great offense of Dr. Doyne's custody findings. To make a long and involved story short, an attack was launched on Dr. Doyne's credentials which are a necessary part in becoming qualified as an expert witness before the court. This attack went through the court system for years threatening to destroy a career and to undermine many child custody evaluations and court orders. In a June 30, 2011 press release from the San Francisco Chronicle (which you can view here) the news has just been released that this "false credentials" lawsuit has been dismissed.

Continue reading "San Diego Child Custody Evaluation News" »