San Diego Divorce Attorneys BlogArticles Posted in Custody and Visitation
Can Parents Waive Their Parental Rights?
In California, the Family Court System is designed to encourage parties to settle disputes and reach agreements regarding contested issues. Specifically in Del Mar and throughout San Diego County parties are required to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference before their case can proceed to trial. However, despite this strong public policy towards settlement, the California Court of Appeal has clearly drawn a line between what parties can and cannot agree to.
In this Court of Appeal case, Mother (Kristine) first filed a petition at the trial court level to establish a parental relationship between her son, Seth, and his biological father. Since the parties were not married at the time of conception or birth, there was no presumption that Father (David) was in fact Seth’s father. Once the court determined, through the use of a paternity test, that David was Seth’s biological father, the parties entered into a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement that can be filed with the court and creates enforceable orders. Kristine and David stipulated that David consented to terminate all of his parental rights and Kristine agreed to waive any claim for future child support. In short, the parties agreed to terminate David’s parental rights and responsibilities.
Over the objection of Minor’s counsel, the trial court was persuaded by the parties’ argument that they had the right and ability to contract regarding their respective parental rights. David argued that proceedings to terminate parental rights are not necessarily linked to a pending or contemplated adoption therefore he should not be prohibited from terminating his on the basis that Seth would only be left with one parent. The trial court was also persuaded in part by case law in which the court upheld agreements made by parents prior to conception of a child such as in artificial insemination and surrogacy cases.
Halle Berry’s International Move Away
Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry is entrenched in a bitter custody battle with her ex-husband Gabriel Aubry. The couple split in February of 2010 but has been in court recently fighting for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Nahla. Berry is now engaged to Oliver Martinez who is both a French actor and French citizen. Currently the main issue in the Berry-Aubry custody dispute is Berry’s request to move with Nahla to France. Although her new fiancé conveniently lives in France, Berry claims that she is motivated to move by a desire to keep her daughter safe. Berry argues that the paparazzi are endangering Nahla. Unlike the United States, France has laws that protect celebrities from the constant snapping of photos by the paparazzi. Additionally, Berry’s stalker Richard Franco has recently been released from prison and she argues that he is again a threat to her and Nahla.
Under California child custody laws, the standard for a move away case such as this depends on whether the parties already have a final custody and visitation order. However, regardless of whether a final order is in place, a judge will likely deny or grant a move-away request on the basis of the best interests of the child. Additional factors the judge will consider include but are not limited to: (1) the child’s interest in the stability of the current arrangement, (2) the distance of the move, (3) the current relationship the child has with both parents, (4) the reasons for the proposed move and (5) any other factors the court deems relevant. Although Berry argues that the move is motivated by a good faith desire to protect her daughter, the Family Court Services recommendation suggests that the move is not in Nahla’s best interest. Considering the distance between California and France, Nahla’s relationship with her father would be deeply affected by the move. According to the report, Nahla has a close relationship with Aubry and separating her from her father would be detrimental.
Grandparents and the Aftermath of Divorce
Before and during marriage, grandparents can provide substantial financial and emotional support to a family. Grandparents often pay for weddings, put down payments on the family home, and create college funds. In addition to lending or gifting money, grandparents also volunteer to babysit daily when both parents have to return to work. The grandparent who provides daycare often transports the children to extracurricular activities and enriches their education. Grandparents may also volunteer to take the children for overnights when the parents need a date night and time alone to nurture their relationship. During marriage, grandparents can play an integral role in child rearing. However, this potentially close and beneficial relationship between grandparent and grandchild may not be so honored upon divorce.
According to the statistics released by AARP, the average grandparent spends approximately $1,000 on his or her grandchild each year. However, despite their generosity and support, grandparents receive little protection in a divorce proceeding. Upon divorce, for a variety of reasons, one parent may limit the visitation of a grandparent. The grandparent may be prohibited from visiting with his or her grandchild while that child is in the care of one parent. The consequences of this prohibition can be devastating if the hostile parent is awarded physical custody while the other is only permitted specific visitation. This sudden change in the grandparent-grandchild relationship is traumatizing for both parties involved.
Although many grandparents attempt to intervene in divorce proceedings to assert their rights to visitation, they are rarely rewarded with victory. In 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Troxel v. Granville. In this case, grandparents petitioned for visitation rights after the mother limited visitation to one day per month and some holidays. The Supreme Court relied on a parent’s fundamental right under the Constitution to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children in making their decision. The Court held that requiring a parent to facilitate grandparent visitation against his or her wishes violates that parent’s right to make decisions regarding the “care, custody and control” of his or her children. Despite this particular holding, the Court did not find that visitation laws are per se unconstitutional, therefore California still allows grandparents to seek visitation rights.
The New Frontier in Custody Cases
As we have previously blogged, child custody laws and presumptions have evolved over time in San Diego. Recently, some states, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, are moving toward a new way of thinking when it comes to child custody and visitation. These states intend to eliminate the concept of “custody” all together. Instead of determining custodial rights of parents upon divorce, courts would instead determine “parental responsibilities.” This change would reflect a shift in how children are viewed in society. The idea of “child custody” originated when children were still seen as “possessions” to either be won or lost in a divorce proceeding. Just as the term “wife” has evolved, the concept of children as property has faded from the American conscious. Now, certain states are beginning to change the wording of family law statutes to reflect this modern shift.
By eliminating the word “custody” in favor of phrases such as “parenting time” and “decision making,” litigants can better focus on the specific actions of each parent in order to determine which future course of action is in the best interest of the child. The intent behind the new wording is to create a different mindset for all those involved in the case. The change encourages parents to narrow in on parental duties, instead of viewing children as property. Additionally, family courts will have greater latitude and more options when creating a comprehensive parenting plan. The judge will not be forced to place every case in a predesigned box such as those labeled “joint custody” or “sole custody.”
Under the California Family Code, a judge may award physical or legal custody. Although the word “custody” is used to describe both, the two terms have drastically different consequences. A parent awarded legal custody has the right and responsibility to make decisions regarding the child’s health, safety and wellbeing. A parent awarded physical custody will have the right to spend time with the child. The proposals for change in other states attempt to clearly establish a separation between parenting time and decision-making. The spirit of the existing law will be preserved in this area; however, the new terminology is intended to change how these parental responsibilities are viewed. Proponents argue that the use of the word “custody” to describe both parenting time and decision-making is confusing to the layperson and average litigant. By actually describing “legal custody” as decision-making and “physical custody” as parenting time, the two concepts will be better understood throughout the litigation process. Additionally, the word “visitation” will also be eliminated from family law jargon. If one parent is awarded physical custody of the child, usually the noncustodial parent is awarded visitation rights. This term will be replaced with “parenting time” as well in order to reduce confusion.
Is There a Market “Divorce for Men” in San Diego?
There has been a back and forth trend in custody and visitation legislation preferring one sex to the other. The first custody laws in the United States automatically granted father custody of the child unless he was determined to be unfit, unavailable, or agreed to grant the mother custody. Later, the “tender years presumption” replaced the paternalistic custody laws. Under this new presumption, mothers became the preferred custodian because they were seen as nurturing and in the best position to provide children with the care they needed. Eventually, this notion faded because it merely perpetrated a gender stereotype and opponents argued that it was unconstitutional. Under the California Family Code today there is no stated gender preference. However, both men and women argue that gender bias exists in the courts against their respective sexes.
The Father’s Rights Movement began in the 1970’s as a new perspective on which parent is the preferable custodian in a custody dispute. Supporters argue that the family courts are consumed with gender bias against men and blindly award support and custody to women by virtue of their sex. These groups promote changes to family law that emphasize the rights of parents or the child’s rights to both parents.
Divorce lawyers have begun targeting husbands who may subscribe to the notion that the family laws and courts are predisposed to favor women. This new type of law firm advertises to men through sports magazines, on the radio, and on television. It targets programming most often viewed by men and less likely to be watched or listened to by women. The men who hire the “divorce for men” law firms fear losing their children and money on the basis of gender. They argue that women are automatically awarded custody and spousal support because of the existence of gender stereotypes and bias. One such firm claims to “specialize in men’s issues.” This statement is based on the assumption that “men’s issues” exist currently in San Diego family law courts. The controlling standard in any child custody and visitation case is the best interest of the child. When considering the various factors outlined by the family code, there is no indication that the gender of each parent should be addressed at all.
Stevie Wonder Files for Divorce from Fashionista
On July 26, 2012, Stevie Wonder signed a petition for divorce with two of his fingerprints. After eleven years of marriage, Wonder cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for his divorce from wife Kai Millard Morris. Wonder and Morris have been living separately for nearly three years since October 2009. According to the divorce petition, Wonder is seeking joint custody of the couple’s two children, Kailand, 10, and Mandla, 7. From 1970 to 1972 Wonder was married to singer Syreeta Wright and is the father to a total of seven kids from both marriages and other relationships. The petition also states that Wonder agrees to pay child and spousal support.California is a community property state. This means that all property acquired by either spouse during marriage is to be divided equally between the spouses upon divorce. These assets are called community property. Community property can only be acquired after the date of marriage but before the date of separation. The date of separation is determined by a combination of two factors. First, the spouses must be living separately and apart. Second, at least one spouse must intend not to resume the marital relationship. The court will evaluate whether a separation has occurred based on a mixture of relevant objective and subjective intentions and behaviors. Because Wonder and Morris began living separately in 2009, the first factor is satisfied. The court will next look at the actions of either party including but not limited to: whether they continued to commingle finances, celebrated anniversaries and/or romantic holidays together, and whether either party continued to perform marital duties.
Stevie Wonder amassed most of fortune before his marriage to Morris thus; Morris will not be entitled to any of these premarital earnings. All of Wonder’s earnings before marriage are separate property. Upon divorce, separate property is awarded entirely to the separate property estate. If the parties entered into a valid premarital agreement, default community property laws will not apply to asset division and Morris may be entitled to some of Wonder’s premarital earnings. Kai Morris is famous in her own right as a fashion designer. She earned notoriety from the support of the First Lady, Michelle Obama. Wonder may be entitled to a portion of Morris’ earnings acquired during the marriage, before the date of separation.The issue of child custody will be decided by the court under the guidance of the best interest of the child standard. Unless the court is presented evidence that either parent is somehow unfit, Wonder’s request for joint custody will likely be granted. The parties may reach an independent agreement regarding child custody and avoid a divorce trial.
Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer in San Diego County representing clients in divorces, who is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) and who is actively licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Don’t settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.
Final Resolution to Custody Battle Over Jackson Kids
Although the infamous Michael Jackson died nearly three years ago on June 25, 2009, the custody battle for his children has raged on. Jackson left three minor children, Prince, 15; Paris, 14; and Prince Michael II, 10. Katherine Jackson was appointed guardian of the children after Jackson’s death in 2009. However, the judge suspended her guardianship after she was recently reported missing. According to Jermaine Jackson, Katherine was not in any danger but rather was resting in Arizona. Two family members have been fiercely battling for custody of the children, Jackson’s mother, Katherine, and the son of his brother, Tito. Apparently the two have reached an agreement to share guardianship. At the age of 82, Katherine will be relieved of daily responsibilities such as management of household personnel and the security team.
According to her attorney, Perry Sanders, “Mrs. Jackson is extremely pleased with the prospect of enjoying the pleasure of raising Michael’s children without the day-to-day tedium of items such as managing the large staff that goes with such a high profile family and focus her attention on being a grandmother and raising Michael’s children.” As her co-guardian, Tito has enjoyed a close relationship with the children for the majority of their lives and has been solely responsible for their care in Katherine’s absence. Margaret Lodise, the court-appointed guardian ad litem for the children, has confirmed that the custody agreement is agreeable to all the Jackson children.
New California Legislation to Allow More Than Two Parents
ABC’s Modern Family depicts a different type of family in an attempt to emulate a more accurate picture of the average American household. Modernly, many families are not simply made up of a heterosexual couple raising a few children in a suburban neighborhood. Modern Family illustrates the struggle same-sex couples have adopting children, the difficulties of living in a blended family, and coping with divorce. Because of the new changes emerging in American households, parenting of children has become more complicated. Children do not necessarily only have two parental figures in their lives anymore. California family legislators have begun to recognize the changes occurring and have proposed a new law that could expand the view of traditional families.
Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco has proposed new legislation that has the potential to give San Diego residents more parenting options. Under current laws, a child may only have two legal parents. The proposal will create the possibility for a child to have a parent-child relationship with more than two parents. Although the number of permitted parents may change, the same standard of awarding custody and visitation would apply. The court will award custody and visitation of the child amongst all the parents in accordance with the best interest of the child.
The proposal’s controversial nature has garnered significant criticism from conservative groups founded on the belief that two parents, one mother and one father, should raise a child. Opponents of the proposal argue that it is merely a means to further the same-sex marriage movement. This argument is fiercely contested by the bill’s proponents who claim it has nothing to do with “culture wars” and is solely based on the best interest of the children involved in custody disputes. Additionally, opponents claim that the bill would lead to more instability for children as a result of increased conflict.
Celebrity Divorce History – Tom and Katie
After five years of marriage Katie Holmes filed for divorce from husband Tom Cruise on June 28, 2012. However, the most surprising part of this celebrity divorce is the quick resolution. Just eleven days after filing the initial paperwork, Katie’s attorney announced that the couple reached a final settlement of the case. TomKat have been hesitant to comment on the split, but have released a statement regarding their six-year-old daughter, Suri. The vague statement expressed a desire to accomplish what is in Suri’s best interest, keep private family matters out of the press, and explained the mutual respect Katie and Tom have for each other’s respective beliefs. This reference to religious beliefs might be an indication that Tom’s emersion in the religion of Scientology may have contributed to the split.
There is much speculation surrounding the quick and secretive manner in which the divorce was filed. The debate centers on whether Katie was trying to escape Scientologists or the media frenzy that surrounds public figures. The fact that the couple reached such a quick settlement tends to establish that Katie was not working on ending the marriage alone. Other experts speculate that a prenuptial agreement may have hurried the process along. Katie’s quick moves took careful planning over many months. Rumors indicate that she obtained a disposable phone and many laptops in order to keep discussions with her attorney private.