Articles Posted in Custody and Visitation

By

In San Diego County an estimated one out of four children is exposed to domestic violence either as a victim or a witness. According to the San Diego Domestic Violence Council over 500 women and children need to stay in a shelter each day. In a relationship that involves a history of domestic violence, if a partner decides to leave, he or she will have many questions about how that history can impact a child custody case.

Understanding what constitutes domestic violence can be complex. Under California Family Code section 6211, domestic violence is defined as abuse perpetrated against specific categories of family members. Mental health professionals agree that domestic violence is a pattern of behavior characterized by an abusers attempt to control his or her victim through the use of a variety of techniques.

In a case that does not involve domestic violence, the court decides the outcome of a custody case based on the best interest of the child. The court considers a variety of factors such as:

1. The health safety, and welfare of the child 2. Any history of abuse by one parent
3. The nature and amount of contact with both parents 4. Habitual or continual illegal drug or alcohol abuse by either parent
There is a prevalent belief in society that when a couple separates, it is in the best interest of the child to have the most extensive relationship possible with both parents. This assumption is true in a typical separation. However, a separation involving domestic violence is not a typical separation. Family Court judges have many options to consider when deciding which parent, or combination of parents, will make decisions on behalf of a child and take care of that child. If a parent has sole legal custody, he or she has the exclusive right and responsibility to make decisions for the child regarding his or her health, education and welfare. If a parent has sole physical custody, the child will live with that parent subject to the visitation rights of the other. Any joint custody arrangement involves the sharing of these rights and responsibilities.
Continue reading

By

Many of our San Diego Family Law client’s use Facebook and other social network or dating webpages. This is not surprising considering that Facebook alone has more than 800 million active users. More than 50% of those active users log on to Facebook everyday and on average more than 250 million photos are uploaded per day. Almost every social network and dating website can be accessed by a cell phone or tablet.We have previously blogged about the use of information from social network and dating websites in divorce cases. We have also previously cautioned readers of our blog (as well as our clients) regarding what not to post on Facebook and other social network and dating sites while going though a divorce. This includes NOT posting wild pictures of yourself, NOT tweeting about job woes or problems with the kids and NOT posting about drug and alcohol use. It is also important to adjust your privacy settings. In other words, do not post anything to a social network or dating website that you would want your former spouse, children or the family law judge in your case to see or read.

Recently, there have been some interesting and seemingly conflicting orders regarding requests for Facebook or other social network or dating website information.

In one case reported by the ABA Journal, a judge in a Connecticut divorce case ordered the parties’ attorneys to exchange their clients’ Facebook and dating websites passwords. Although the order stated that the parties themselves would not be given the passwords of the other, the order also stated for neither party to visit the other party’s social network website and post messages purporting to be the other. You can imagine what one party must have posted on the other party’s social network for that order to be made.

However, in another recent personal injury case involving an accident from 1993 in which the insurance companies denial of benefits did not question Plaintiff’s limitations or need for care, the insurance company still sought, through discovery, the Plaintiff’s Facebook password, a list of his Facebook friends, along with other Facebook activity and information including, all photographs, messages, status posts, wall posts, comments, groups, and group memberships. When the Plaintiff refused to provide the information, the insurance company filed a Motion to Compel to force the Plaintiff to provide the information. Fortunately for the Plaintiff, the court denied the Motion to Compel on the grounds that the Facebook information was not relevant or likely to make any disputed fact more or less likely, despite the insurance company’s argument that Plaintiff’s Facebook posts would likely contain information about the Plaintiff’s daily activities and thoughts. The court found that any possible relevant information which could be gleaned through the Plaintiff’s Facebook information would also be available to the insurance company through less intrusive, less annoying and less speculative means. The court characterized the insurance company’s request for Facebook information as a fishing expedition at best and harassment at worst.

However, unlike in most civil cases, the information contained on a social networks and dating websites is often very relevant in family law cases, particularly to the issues of custody and visitation. It may also be relevant to the issues of property division and fiduciary duties.

In the Connecticut divorce case discussed above, one party was requesting full custody of the children and argued that the Facebook and dating website information was relevant to the other party’s ability to take care of their children. Apparently, the Court was persuaded by the argument and ordered the exchange of passwords.

Another interesting argument, that has not yet been determined by the courts, is whether the type of order issued in the Connecticut divorce case is valid or enforceable in light of Facebook’s Terms of Use Provisions. Following the Connecticut order would arguably violate the these two Terms of Use Provisions:

1) You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else. and;

2) You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

As long as social networks and dating websites continue to be popular, we anticipate that requests for information and pictures from them will become more and more frequent in divorce cases.
Continue reading

By

Shh. Big Brother is Watching!

Do you use Facebook, Twitter or other social media? If so, and you have filed for divorce in San Diego, you need to be aware that your posts, tweets and pictures may end up being entered as evidence in a court of law.San Diego divorce lawyers are seeing many more cases involving social media. In just a few short years, this technology has become so pervasive that a California divorce lawyer would be remiss for not seeing what public information is available about a client’s former spouse online. Whether as a source of information or evidence in a pending family law action, or the actual impetus for the divorce itself, social media has arrived on the scene in a big way. Consider the following:

  • In March, the U.K’s Guardian reported that social networking sites are becoming a primary source of evidence in divorce proceedings. The article even blames Facebook for connecting old flames and causing marital problems.
  • A survey last year by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that 4 of 5 lawyers had seen an increase in divorce cases involving social media evidence.
  • This month’s Men’s Health features an article detailing Twitter relationships a divorcing party participates in with multiple partners.

Although the Wall Street Journal reports the notion that 1 in 5 divorces are caused by Facebook is a fallacy, there is no doubt social media is a contributing cause in a substantial number of divorces. More and more attorneys are asking to see a spouse’s Facebook page as a matter of course.

There have been sociological studies into the issue of why people behave the way they do on social networking sites. These studies reveal that people treat such social technology the way they would a close friend — and that they confide information in a very public way — information that is often best left unsaid, particularly if you are in the middle of a contentious divorce or child custody proceeding. For example:

  • Posting wild and crazy pictures of you while on vacation is not a good idea. You should simply refrain from posting such pictures.
  • Tweeting about job woes or problems with the kids is a bad idea. It is best to keep this information confidential.
  • Posting about your alcohol or drug use (especially pictures) is a very, very bad idea. Do not do this under any circumstances.

A good rule of thumb is to not post anything to a social media site that you would want a judge to see. Otherwise, you may end up in the very uncomfortable position of explaining your posts, tweets or pictures to a judge in a court of law.

One more thing to consider is reviewing your friends as well as your privacy settings on Facebook and any other social media sites that you use. Your friends may still be talking to your ex, or to your ex’s friends, allowing your ex, and his or her attorney, full access to all of the information you share on your social media sites. An increasing body of evidence continues to suggest this is advice best followed even if you are not in the midst of a divorce.

Your attorney will warn you about social media sites. Whether you heed the warning is up to you. There are few things can torpedo your case like your own words or pictures posted on a social media site for all to see.
Continue reading

By

In a previous San Diego Divorce Attorney blog post, I discussed the factors the court looks at when a party is requesting to move with the children.In two recent San Diego divorce cases, the court of appeal determined that the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standard when denying move away requests.

In both Mark T. v. Jamie Z. and F.T. v. L.J., the trial court was reversed for failing to assume that the move by the parent requesting the move will take place, and then under those circumstances, make a decision about with whom and under what circumstances the child should live. Instead, in both cases, the court denied the move-away and made its orders on the assumption that if the move was denied, the custodial parent would not move.

In Mark T. v. Jamie Z., Mother who had primary physical custody of Child, requested to move to Minnesota with the Child because she was unemployed and could not find work in San Diego, despite receiving child support and emergency state aid she was borrowing money from relatives to make ends meet, and she had family in Minnesota with whom she could live and provide child care assistance, the cost of living was lower and she planned to return to school part-time and had an internship in Minnesota. Although the FCS mediator recommended that Mother be allowed to move, the child psychologist believed the move should not be permitted because it was in the Child’s best interest not to remove him from a loving and capable Father. The psychologist’s recommendation assumed Mother would remain the primary care-taker with Father’s time increasing from 30% to 50% when the Child turned 5 years old. The court denied the move-away and adopted the psychologist’s recommendations, assuming that if the move-away was denied, that Mother would remain in San Diego with the child. The court of appeal reversed holding that the court misapplied the legal standard and avoided the ultimate question – what custody arrangement would be in the Child’s best interests, assuming Mother moved. The court also did not base its decision on all of the move-away factors and the one’s that were used, such as finding the move “suspect”, were without a basis for the findings.

In F.T. v. L.J., Father, who had primary custody of Child, requested to move Washington state with the Child because he was marrying a Washington state resident. Father originally obtained primary custody after Mother abused the Child, and Mother was convicted for battery against the Child. Mother had supervised visitation, which was later modified to unsupervised visitation. Both FCS and the psychologist recommended against the move. FCS proposed alternative child sharing schedules depending on whether Father remained in San Diego or moved. The court denied the move-away, finding that the move was not in the Child’s best interest and made an order assuming that Father would remain in San Diego. The Court of Appeal reversed holding that the court misapplied the legal standard, did not treat the Father’s plan to move as serious, erroneously required Father to show the move was necessary, only considered impact on Child’s relationship with Mother instead of all the move-away factors and failed to apply Family Code Section 3044’s rebuttable presumption that Mother should not be awarded custody because of her criminal conviction for battery of the Child.

The court must apply all of the move-away factors, including:
• Reason for the move;
• Whether the move is to frustrate the other parent’s contact;
• The child’s interest in stability and continuity;
• Distance of the move;
• Age of the children;
• Child’s relationship with both parents;
• Current child sharing.
• Child’s Existing contact with both parents;
• The relationship between the parents;
• The wishes of the children if mature enough;
• Child’s community ties;
• Child’s health and educational needs;
• Child’s circle of friends; and • Child’s sports/academic activities.
and make orders based on the assumption that the party requesting the move will move regardless of the court’s decision. The court can also make conditional orders, stating what the parenting plan will be effective upon the party actually making the move.
Continue reading

By

Sometimes, during or after a divorce, my client may decide to move away from San Diego. The most frequent reasons I hear are that my client can no longer afford to live in San Diego, have family/friends elsewhere, or received a great job offer out of San Diego.

When there are no children involved, a party is free to move. However, things become complicated there are minor children involved and the moving party wants to move with the children.

Whether you are the one requesting to move, or opposing a request to move, it is important to consult or retain an experienced San Diego divorce attorney. Once divorce proceeding have begun, both parties are automatically restrained from removing the minor children from the State (and usually the County once temporary custody orders are entered) without written consent of the other party or court order.

Continue reading

By

If you are heading to the court house to file a Petition for dissolution of marriage (or a Response), don’t forget to bring your check book. Here in San Diego County, the current filing fee for a “first paper” (which includes a Petition or a Response) is $395. And while that may seem quite expensive, it could be a lot worse.

The Associated Press recently reported on a new law in Romania which allows each of the country’s municipalities to set their own fee for a divorce. The towns’ fees range across the board, with the most expensive being Sangeorgiu de Mures. Couples divorcing in Sangeorgiu de Mures must pay 10,000 lei, which is approximately $3,370. To put this in perspective, The Associated Press reports that this amount is nearly 60 percent of the average annual salary. Interestingly, the fee to divorce in Sangeorgiu de Mures is 2,000 times what it costs in the capital city of Bucharest.

So why the high fee in Sangeorgiu de Mures? The Associated Press reports that the goal is to discourage divorce, as many of the town’s 8000 residents are catholic. And in fact, it appears to be working. According to The Associated Press, a number of couples have actually decided to remain married after learning of the high fee.

Continue reading

By

California is considered a no-fault divorce state, meaning the reason a couple is divorcing is completely irrelevant to the court in whether the court will grant a divorce. Neither party has to prove the other was at fault for the break down of the marriage. There is even a statute that makes evidence of specific acts of misconduct is improper and inadmissible. It does not matter to the court whether you are requesting a divorce from your spouse because he/she is abusive toward you, uses drugs, is an alcoholic, cheats and/or has inappropriate Facebook relationships, works too much or that you have grown tired of your spouse. As long as one party alleges “irreconcilable differences”, meaning marital problems that cannot be resolved, the court will grant a request for divorce.

The other ground for divorce in California is “incurable insanity.” As a San Diego divorce attorney, although some of my clients think their spouse is “insane”, I never had a case where the “insanity” reached a level of “incurable insanity.”

So while fault has no impact on whether or not a court will grant a divorce, three areas of “fault” – domestic violence, drug use and alcoholism – can have a major impact on how the court decides the issues of custody, visitation and spousal support.

Continue reading

By

TMZ.com reports that Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller have reached a custody agreement, which includes mutual drug testing. In the case of Sheen and Mueller, it appears the parties volunteered to submit to drug tests. But what if they didn’t volunteer to do so? Could the court order one, or both of them, to take a drug test?

Family Code section 3041.5, provides that “[i]n any custody or visitation proceeding…the court may order any person who is seeking custody of, or visitation with, a child who is the subject of the proceeding to undergo testing for the illegal use of controlled substances and the use of alcohol if there is a judicial determination based upon a preponderance of evidence that there is the habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by the parent…”

Thus, the court may order a drug test, but only if it first determines, by a preponderance of evidence, that there is the habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances. Among the ways to show this is a conviction within the last five years for the illegal use or possession of a controlled substance. Family Code section 3041.5.

Continue reading

By

Last month, recording artist Ashlee Simpson filed for divorce from Fall Out Boy band member Pete Wentz. The parties have a 2 year old son, Bronx.

According to People.com, in Simpson’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage she requested sole custody of their son with visitation rights to Wentz. On Tuesday, Wentz filed his Response requesting joint custody of their son. While there is speculation that this may mean Simpson and Wentz are headed for a custody battle, my experience as a San Diego divorce attorney tells me that isn’t necessarily the case.

One of the first steps in the divorce process is to file the Petition or, depending on what side of the case you are on, the Response. When there are children involved, the Petition and Response are how the parties first tell the court what type of custody and visitation order they would like. The options include: legal custody to the Petitioner or Respondent or joint legal custody, physical custody to the Petitioner or Respondent or joint physical custody, and child visitation to the Petitioner or Respondent. Because the Petition and Response are forms, once a party determines which option is best, they simply check the appropriate box. (Of course, this is just what is being requested, and not necessarily what the court will ultimately order.)

Continue reading

By

It’s official, Kelsey and Camille Grammer are divorced. Reflecting on the divorce process, as well as what is to come, Camille told US Magazine: “I am grateful to my family and friends who have stood by me through this time – I will never forget their love and support. What I most hope is that Kelsey and I can improve our communications and truly co-parent our two wonderful children…”

As a family law attorney, many of my clients face the challenge of co-parenting after a divorce. Sometimes, a court will grant one parent sole legal custody, in which case that parent is solely responsible for making decisions relating to the minor child’s care, upbringing, educational training, religious training, social and recreational activities, medical care and treatment, and treatment of emotional needs. Other times, parents will share joint legal custody. When both parents are responsible for making decisions relating to their child’s welfare, and they need to make those decisions together, challenges can arise.

While some might think that parents inherently know how to co-parent after a divorce, realistically, it’s a learned skill. Think back to when you brought your son or daughter home from the hospital. Over those first few days, weeks and months, you had to learn how to be a parent; you had to learn how to change a diaper, what to feed the baby, and what her different cries meant. In this same way, co-parenting after a divorce is a skill that needs to be learned. You will need to learn how to put your relationship issues aside, and work together for the benefit of your children.

Continue reading
Contact Information
Del Mar Technology Center
12348 High Bluff Dr, #220
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858-793-8884
Fax: 858-793-8874

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Bickford Blado & Botros
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design