Articles Posted in Custody and Visitation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

After nearly twelve years of marriage Debra Messing and husband Daniel Zelman are calling it quits. 

Messing and Zelman say the split is amicable and that they intend to remain close friends as they raise their son together. The two announced their separation six months ago. Ironically, immediately following this announcement, Messing began dating her new Smash co-star, Will Chase. The divorce petition filed by Messing on Tuesday June 5, 2012 lists the commonly cited “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for the divorce.

National bodybuilding champion, Ronnie Coleman, was sued for child support by the mother of his children, Jo D. Jo D. requested that Coleman pay support in the amount of $4,000 per month for the care of their triplets. This is a typical scenario in San Diego family law cases because parents are often sued for past due child support. However, Coleman had a winning argument against payment because he was merely a sperm donor. A California appellate court determined that a sperm donor does not have to pay child support as long as he is not married to the recipient mother.The relationship between Coleman and Jo D. blurred the lines between natural father and sperm donor. The two had a sexual relationship while they both lived in Texas as neighbors. Later, Jo D. moved to California and Coleman provided his sperm at California Cryobank, Inc. so that she could be artificially inseminated. Shortly after the birth of triplets resulting from the artificial insemination, Coleman married another woman. At birth, Jo D. listed Coleman on the triplets’ birth certificate as their father. One year later, she brought a lawsuit to collect child support against Coleman.

Under the California Family Code section 7613(b), “the donor of semen provided to a licensed physician and surgeon or to a licensed sperm bank for use in artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization of a woman, other than the donor’s wife, is treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived.” This presumption is not absolute and can be overcome in various ways by the father such as: marrying the mother, publically declaring parentage of the child in a manner specified by statute, receiving the child into his home or opening holding the child out to be his natural child.

Here, although Coleman and Jo D. agreed to this sperm donation arrangement, Coleman has since acted inconsistent with any indication that he intended to be a natural father to the children and involved in their lives. Since the birth of the children, Coleman did not marry or attempt to marry Jo D. In fact, he married another woman just months after the birth of the triplets in 2007. Further, Coleman did not open his home to the children nor did he hold them out to be his natural children. Therefore, as the appellate court correctly held, Coleman is not responsible to financially support the children despite his sperm contribution.

Nadya Suleman, otherwise known as “Octomom,” is famous for giving birth to octuplets in 2009. In addition to her octuplets, Octomom has six other children. Recently Octomom has been criticized in the news for poor parenting. The controversy surrounded a complaint filed by her hair stylist who claimed that the fourteen children were living in substandard conditions. TMZ has reported that only one toilet is operating in the home, which is supplemented with portable toilets located outside in the backyard. According to Suleman, she could not afford to repair the other toilet in the home because the quote of $150 was too expensive. In addition to living in an unsanitary environment, the hair stylist provided photos that suggest the children were locked in a room while Suleman had her hair done.

These images have allegedly sparked an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS), which will determine whether the children are at risk of any substantial harm. The photos depict a messy house with writing on the walls. The hair stylist has also provided photographs of the outdoor toilets. CPS has responded by saying that a messy house does not violate any law and methods of potty training are within the parent’s discretion.

If CPS determines that the children should be permitted to remain in the home up to 12 months of services may be provided to the family in order to improve conditions for the children. If CPS determines that the children are in danger, it will file a petition in Juvenile Court and ask that the children be removed from Suleman’s home. If the children are removed, they may be placed with a relative or in foster care depending on the particular circumstances. Further, Suleman will need to take parenting classes and counseling if she wished to reunify with her children. Up to 18 months of services will be provided if a parent is making efforts toward reunification. If she does not satisfy the court’s concerns, the children could be placed with a legal guardian or even adopted by another person(s).

Famous R & B artist Usher is currently litigating a hotly contested custody case with his former wife Tameka. Tameka and Usher were married for two short years before Usher filed for divorce in 2009. Currently the couple shares joint custody of their two young sons. On Tuesday May 1, the pair attended a court hearing in Georgia where the judge ordered them to work out some type of agreement “or else.” The judge instructed them to attempt to reach a temporary child custody and visitation arrangement in a private mediation setting. If they were unable to reach an agreement, the judge would impose a temporary order upon Usher and Tameka. In this case, the two would have no control over the outcome.

It is common in the San Diego family court system for a judge to order parties to attempt reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiating and mediating disputes, especially those regarding child custody, result in less turmoil in an already hostile situation. This approach tends to promote cooperation and a healthy co-parenting relationship between the parties that is in the best interest of the child. However, when domestic violence is involved in a case, party negotiations will be ineffective and unsuccessful.

Contact Information