Bay Area Divorce Lawyer Blog

November 30, 2012

Court Says Marriage After Child Support Nullifies Payment Obligation – In re Marriage of Wilson

In a recent opinion, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals explained that when a couple has children and later marries, the marriage nullifies a child support order entered prior to it, even if they later divorce.

Mark Wilson and Tamara Bodine were not married when their son was born in August 2001. Bodine obtained a child support order in July 2002 that required Wilson to pay $1,600 a month in support and granting sole legal and physical custody to Bodine. The couple had a second child in June 2003. Then they married in 2005 and separated two years later. A court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage in January 2009.

Wilson filed an action in state court on June 2010, seeking a modification of the 2002 child support order. According to Wilson, he had recently received a notice from the Department of Child Support Services indicating the he owed more than $150,000 in arrears for unpaid support, including payments covering the time during which the couple lived together and were married. Claiming that the couple was operating under 50 percent time-share with both children, Wilson asked that the support award be re-determined based on this arrangement. In response, Bodine argued that Wilson owed unpaid support for a 15-month period after the order was entered and before the couple married.

Following two hearings, a lower court issued a ruling in July 2011, ordering Wilson to pay $100 per month “on undetermined arrears.” The court did not determine the specific amount of arrears owed.

On appeal, the Fourth District ruled that Wilson could not be required to pay support following the divorce because the couple’s marriage nullified the previous support order. The court explained that the situation was analogous to one in which a couple divorces and later remarries after a court has entered a child support award. Pursuant to the state Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Davis v. Davis, the support award is extinguished by the second marriage in such a scenario.

November 28, 2012

California Court Says Father Abandoned Children, Despite Continuing to Pay Support – In re C.C.

by Lorna Jaynes

The Court of Appeals for California’s Fourth District recently explained in In re C.C. that a parent can be found to have abandoned his or her children for custody purposes, even if the parent continues to pay child support.Charles and Misty were married in Pennsylvania in April 2001, less than a year after the birth of their first child, M.C. The couple later had another child, C.C., before divorcing in 2005. Misty was granted primary custody of the children, while Charles was ordered to pay $500 a month in support and awarded regular visitation.

Misty later married Eric and, in 2007, a Pennsylvania court granted her permission to move with the children to San Diego, where Eric was stationed in a military position. Eric, who had contributed financial support for the children since 2006, later filed a petition in California seeking to free the children from Charles’s custody and control on the ground of abandonment. Eric also requested to adopt the children as a stepparent.

Charles fought the petition in a 2011 hearing, arguing that he had been unable to communicate with the children via weekly video conferencing ordered by the Pennsylvania court because he and Misty could not agree on the specific type of conferencing required. Specifically, he argued that his computer webcam was not compatible with the equipment Misty used and that she would not pay for him to get an upgrade. He also alleged that Misty did not tell him about the move until months after it happened, refused to make the children available by phone and did not provide a mailing address.

M.C., now 10 years old, testified at trial that he loved and wanted to be adopted by his “dad” Eric. M.C. also remembered Charles, but said he had not seen his father since 2005 or 2006. The trial court observed M.C. was “obviously very attached” to Eric, while C.C. referred to Eric as “daddy,” and had no memory of Charles. The court also noted that Charles took no action to try to resolve his alleged inability to communicate with the children from 2007 to 2010, and made only token attempts to contact them during this time. As a result, the court granted Eric’s petitions.

September 9, 2012

Best Divorce Strategies – Listen, Seek to understand, Focus on the future, Heal

by Lorna Jaynes

Conflict in the context of divorce can be emotionally and financially debilitating. Family court judges commonly make decisions and orders based on how the law applies to what has already transpired between the parties, to the past. And this approach keeps the spouses in a conflict trap where they are focused on the past and the grievances, hurts and betrayals; rather than on the future, and how they can best solve the problems in order to move forward.

Collaborative Divorce and Mediation on the other hand, enable the parties to focus on what is important for them now and in the future. By focusing on problem solving and real listening, there tends to unfold an understanding that can help couples let go of the conflict and the past and move forward in a productive way, solve the problems and help heal the pain, grief, and anger.

A forward looking focus, however, doesn’t preclude talking about the past because sometimes it is important, essential even, for spouses to be able to express and have heard by the other, their understandings of what went wrong with the relationship. This mutual expression of the hurt and anger, if entered into with an open heart and deep listening can be profoundly instructive and helpful to the process. This is especially important if there will be a continuing relationship, for example, co-parents.

August 17, 2012

California Divorce Attorney Undermines Couple’s Efforts to Reach Agreement – Just Say No To Litigation

by Lorna Jaynes

Sometimes, quite often in fact, the flames of conflict in divorce cases are fanned by attorneys who have more to gain from conflict than from resolution. Against my better judgment, I recently accepted a litigation case with the hope that perhaps I could help facilitate a negotiated settlement. It appeared to be a matter that could be settled with relative ease. During the negotiation process between the attorneys, the clients had a long talk, longer than they had had in years from what I was told, and agreed to put the matter on hold for some time to see if they might reconcile and resolve some of the disputed issues between them.

Upon hearing this, I was tentatively hopeful for both and provided my client with resources he might consider to help improve their communication and relationship and suggested that marital counseling may also be very helpful. And of course, a flower or two wouldn’t hurt.

When my client’s spouse told her attorney of their plans, her attorney responded with the statement, “Oh, so he wins,” and grudgingly prepared a stipulation to continue the scheduled hearing out for a mere three months. I was horrified but not really surprised.

August 17, 2012

Gray Divorce in California

by Lorna Jaynes

Marian, 57, and her husband for nearly 30 years, John, had buried their differences over money, child-rearing and more. But when the last of their two children was finishing high school, the differences became too glaring to ignore. Increasingly, they had little to talk about, and when they did, it was an argument.

They stayed together all those years because of the kids, but now there was little left to hold them together. Marian realized that she was alone in the marriage and would be better off either really alone or with someone who shared her values and interests. When the pain of staying was greater than the fear of leaving, she made a decision and told John the marriage was over.

For this generation of empty-nesters, divorce is increasingly common. Among people ages 50 and older, the divorce rate has doubled over the past two decades, according to research by sociologists Susan Brown and I-Fen Lin of Bowling Green State University, in their paper, “The Gray Divorce Revolution“.

May 9, 2012

Same Gender Marriage: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – President Obama, North Carolina, and Politics

by Lorna Jaynes

The people of North Carolina voted this week to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage. And the ban won with a surprisingly strong 61 to 39 percent, undermining North Carolina’s image as a modern, progressive state. Very bad!

But, on a brighter note, the President of the United States, for the first time in history, declared his support for same-sex marriage. Better late than never, as this comes after years of waffling and talking about ‘evolving views’ on the subject. Still, something to celebrate.

The blogosphere is rife with speculation and second guessing – why did he do it, and what does it mean? How much is political, how much personal? Is this the result of pressure from gay marriage advocates and donors, Vice President Biden’s recent statement that he is “comfortable” with gay marriage or something else?

April 10, 2012

Happy Outcomes in California Mediated Divorce

by Lorna Jaynes

At my favorite local restaurant last weekend I recognized a former divorce mediation client. She did not recognize me as I was dressed in early 19th century garb for a historical event. As I approached her table to say hello, I saw that she was with her former husband, also my client, and their two children.

Since it was a busy Sunday morning brunch in the restaurant and they were with their two young children, it felt inappropriate to inquire about the nature of their dining together. But I have to assume that it was one of two possibilities: (1) either they had reconciled, or (2) they were enjoying a post-divorce family brunch.

I suspect it was the latter, but either way, both are positive and wonderful outcomes that, in my opinion, would almost never occur had the divorce been a contested/litigated one.

March 29, 2012

Childhood Obesity in California Custody & Vistation Disputes

by Lorna Jaynes

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 17%, or about 12.5 million, of the nation’s children and teens are obese. Since 1980, according to CDC statistics, obesity rates have nearly tripled.

Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids’ weight? An article by Dr. David Ludwig in the Journal of the American Medical Association answers in the affirmative, and joins ranks with others who believe the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases and that putting children in foster care may be better and more ethical than obesity surgery.

Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese and though most are not in any imminent danger, many have obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties and liver problems that could kill them by age 30. It is these kids for whom state intervention, including education, parent training, and temporary protective custody in the most extreme cases, should be considered, according to Dr. Ludwig.

February 5, 2012

California’s Child Custody and Relocation Laws Make it Possible for Parents to Move Away With Their Children.

by Lorna Jaynes

Since Americans both divorce and move in significant numbers it is no surprise that move-away and relocation issues between divorced parents arise frequently.

The consequences of a move-away case can profoundly impact both the parents and their children and the cases are far more conflicted than the typical high-conflict child custody dispute where the parents fight over the amount of time each will have with the children. The children, caught in the middle of their parents’ battle, often feel pressured to choose between their parents, and even when there is not such a choice, the children’s relationship with the non-custodial parent is often changed forever.

In 1996, the California State Supreme Court in Burgess v. Burgess made it much easier than it had been for primary custodial parents to move-away. In Burgess, the mother wanted to move with the couple’s two children to a town about 40 minutes away. After winning in the Superior Court and losing in the District Court of Appeal, the wife successfully convinced the California State Supreme Court that the trial judge made the right decision in allowing her to move with the children.

January 24, 2012

How to Avoid Bias in California Family Courts

by Lorna Jaynes

Given the high divorce rate in this country, just about all of us have been impacted in some way by divorce and custody/support matters. Perhaps it was our own family or parents or our own divorce, or simply a very close friend or family member. And with few exceptions, a majority of folks in these situations feel they lost too much or paid too much, received too little, or had a custody/visitation order that was “unfair” to them, and worse.  Based on these experiences, we develop opinions and biases about how such matters should be handled. And of course, every judicial officer, as well as recommending Family Court Services mediators and custody evaluators, have their own personal biases. Consequently, the reality is that the same exact case may have very different results in different court rooms.

This is not to disparage family court judges who deal with complex issues (permanent removal of children to another state, custody, visitation, domestic abuse, determining real income, valuing assets (eg, closely held businesses) on a daily basis, with honor and integrity. But the inherent bias based on one’s experiences in many cases cannot help but bias the judge’s factual findings, their discretion, and how they decide to apply the law. This bias probably exists more in family law than in other areas. No amount of bias elimination training can make a judge forget about their life experiences, assumptions, personal beliefs/views and biases. Consequently, family law litigation can be unfair and inequitable.

However, most judges it is hoped, exercise enough self awareness to check in with their personal biases before making a ruling. And it is important to note that mediators and Collaborative professionals are no less immune to being impacted by personal experience as judges and others in the court system. We too are human beings with biases and must guard against forming opinions based on them. However, we are not judging and making orders, rather our role to facilitate a full and constructive dialogue between the parties that will enable them to reach their own agreement, so our biases have less impact. And ethical and conscientious mediators are very aware of the potential for bias and work hard to be neutral and unbiased.