Nancy J. Bickford

By

Relocation throughout the United States is generally a simple process; therefore, it is not uncommon for one or both parties to move to a different state after a divorce. In such cases, parents are faced with a jurisdictional dilemma with regard to their custody and visitation issues. Frequently as children get older their needs and schedules change significantly. In some cases the parents are able to adapt to new situations and reach agreements to modify outdated custody and visitation orders. However, in more high conflict cases, court intervention is necessary – especially if the parents no longer reside in the same state.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) is the governing law for determining whether a court can exercise jurisdiction over a custody and visitation matter. Under the UCCJEA, a California court may not modify another state’s custody order unless (1) the California court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination AND either (2) the court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction OR (3) a California court or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.California has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination if California is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding. The “home state” is defined as the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. Therefore, unless California is currently the home state of the child, it will not proceed with the rest of the analysis to consider whether it can modify another state’s order.

Once California has determined it is the home state of a child, the parties must meet item two or item three discussed above. If the court that made the initial child custody determination determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because the child and one parent fail to have a significant connection with the state and substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is no longer available in that state, California may modify another state’s order. In addition, if none of the parties continue to reside in the state which made the initial custody order, California may modify an out-of-state custody order as long as all of the proper procedures have been followed.
Continue reading

By

According to Fox News, a Florida man called his ex 145 times over the span of a mere 11 hours. Although he has been released from jail on bail, he now faces charges of aggravated stalking. If this situation were to occur in California, would the man’s actions perhaps warrant an order of protection in the realm of domestic violence? Could he face any criminal consequences for his actions?

Unfortunately, divorce attorneys often deal with clients who are being abused by their ex or their soon to be ex and need legal protection from such abuse. Harassment may be considered a form of abuse. If the client and the other person have a close relationship (i.e. they are divorced, separated, dating, use to date, living together, used to live together or closely related) and the client has been abused or harassed by that other person, it falls within the realm of domestic violence. Divorce attorneys will typically assist the client with getting a domestic violence restraining order against the other person.A restraining order, also known as an order of protection, is an order by the court that sets forth what conduct is or is not permitted between a person who has committed threats or violence against another person. Behavior that constitutes domestic violence for purposes of seeking an order of protection can be physical abuse, sexual assault, making someone reasonably afraid of being hurt, or harassing, stalking, disturbing someone’s peace, etc. First, a Temporary Restraining Order must be obtained. Then, the Court will set a date for the parties to return to Court and request that the Restraining Order be made a Permanent Order. Also, according to Family Code 6320(a), “The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls”

Depending on the severity of the situation, you can also pursue criminal prosecution against the abuser or harasser. In fact, California Penal Code Section 653m (b) provides that “Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor.” So your ex calling you over 145 times during the span of a mere 11 hours, like what recently happened in Florida, could not only warrant an order of protection but may also be considered a crime punishable pursuant to the California Penal Code. Of course, excessive phone calls or electronic contacts that are made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business, would not be punishable under the Penal Code.
Continue reading

By

At the heart of any divorce proceeding involving minor children should be the consideration of what is in the child’s best interest. In high conflict cases, where the divorcing parents cannot come to a mutual agreement regarding the custody arrangement for their child or children, the court will need to get involved to determine the appropriate allocation of physical contact and decision making authority that each parent will have with the child. Often times, in order for the Judge to determine what is in the best interests of the child, he or she will need to order a Child Custody Evaluation.

In California, a Child Custody Evaluation is also often referred to as a “730 Evaluation” because California Evidence Code Section 730 permits the court to appoint one or more experts to investigate, render a report and testify as an expert in order to help the Judge determine what is in the best interest of the child. This type of forensic evaluation is much more extensive and formal than just a court-ordered custody investigation. Specifically, if there are concerns about mental health issues, child abuse, substance abuse, parenting practices that may have a negative impact on the child, move away cases, etc. a 730 Evaluation will likely be needed in order to get a thorough, objective and competent analysis of the parents and an assessment of what is in the best interests of the children.Qualified examiners include Marriage and Family Therapists, Licensed Clinical Social Workers, Psychiatrists and Psychologists. In California, the Judge typically selects the evaluator from an approved panel or a list submitted by the parties (so long as the recommended evaluator meets the list of criteria required). The evaluator will be required to act as a professional expert and must act as a neutral throughout the evaluation. 730 evaluations typically involve observations, review of documents and medical records, clinical interviews with the parents and children, and psychological assessments. Any formal psychological testing, however, must be completed by a trained psychologist. It usually takes at least three months to complete all of the necessary evaluations and to draft a detailed written report.

Since the Judge does not know the family personally, he or she will typically depend on the opinion of the expert to understand the parties and their nature of interaction with the child. Ultimately, the main focus of the Judge is to uncover what is the best interest of the child. Therefore, a 730 evaluation usually includes a written recommendation for what the evaluator believes, based on his or her expert opinion, is in the best interests of the child. While the evaluator does offer his or her input, the Judge is the one who ultimately makes the decision regarding child custody. But, the evaluator’s recommendation is usually taken very seriously by the court who may give significant weight to the evaluator’s recommendation. The evaluator may also be brought into court to further explain or defend his or her recommendations. In some situations the evaluator may even be ordered to conduct further studies of the issue at hand. In any case, 730 evaluations can play a big role in high conflict custody cases.
Continue reading

By

In every California divorce proceeding, both parties must take a good hard look at their joint and individual finances. This is because, at the outset of the divorce process, both parties are required to provide an exhaustive list of all assets, debts, income and expenses. This aids in the division of property and determination of support. However, sometimes once all the facts are laid out in black and white for the parties, they realize that they have much more debt than they originally thought. If the parties’ financial situation is dire enough, one or both parties may file bankruptcy.

If you are going through a divorce and are considering filing bankruptcy it is important to discuss this decision with both a bankruptcy attorney and a certified family law specialist. Together, these professionals should be able to give you all of the information necessary to make the decision regarding whether to file for bankruptcy or not. If you decide you would like to file for bankruptcy, you should consider the timing of your filing and the effect it will have on your divorce case.

Once a party to a divorce action files bankruptcy, the bankruptcy case operates as a stay to all proceedings regarding the division of community property that is the property of the bankruptcy estate. The stay does not operate to prevent proceedings to collect, modify or enforce child and/or spousal support payments against current income. Further, the divorce proceeding itself is not stayed. However, a dissolution proceeding cannot be completed until all property is divided. If property division is stayed pursuant to an ongoing bankruptcy case, the resolution of the divorce case will likewise be stayed.

If a divorce judgment is entered in violation of a bankruptcy imposed stay of proceedings, the divorce judgment is still valid. However, the divorce judgment will have no legally binding effect on the bankruptcy case. The divorce judgment is effective and binding as between the parties but has no legal effect on the bankruptcy authorities. The bankruptcy court does have the option to deflect jurisdiction to the family court to establish the character or title to property held in the debtor’s estate. Unless and until the bankruptcy court deflects such jurisdiction to the family court, the property of the estate will be controlled by the bankruptcy court. In the context of a post-judgment motion or case where the parties to a family law matter were never married, filing bankruptcy does not stay a request to establish or modify child or spousal support.
Continue reading

By

As blogged about in Part 1 of my previous blog entitled “More than Two Legal Parents Recognized in California Family Law Courts” new legislation was enacted changing the traditional perception of “family” in the California court system. Until recently, children were presumed to have only one or two parents. Having three parents was not even a consideration. However, under the new law, which went into effect January 1, 2014, Courts are now able to recognize that a child may have more than two legal parents.

The modification of Family Code Section 3040, as discussed in Part 1, gives the Court authority to allocate child custody and visitation among all parents in the case of a child with more than two parents. Such allocation must be based on the best interest of the child, including stability for the child by preserving established emotional bonds and patterns of care that the child has had. While the modification of Family Code Section 3040 focuses on custody and visitation, the addition of Family Code Section 4052.5 sheds light on the Court’s authority to allocate child support when a child has more than two parents.

Family Code Section 4052.5 dives deeper into the realm of recognizing that a child can have more than two legal parents and gives family law courts the authority to divide child support obligations among all parents under certain circumstances. Specifically, Family Code Section 4052.5 provides, in part, the following: “The statewide uniform guideline, as required by federal regulations, shall apply in any case in which a child has more than two parents. The court shall apply the guideline by dividing child support obligations among the parents based on income and amount of time spent with the child by each parent, pursuant to Section 4053.” However, this section further provides that “… the presumption that the guideline amount of support is correct may be rebutted if the court finds that the application of the guideline in that case would be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances, pursuant to Section 4057. If the court makes that finding, the court shall divide child support obligations among the parents in a manner that is just and appropriate based on income and amount of time spent with the child by each parent.” [emphasis added]. In other words, the Court may deviate from statewide uniform guideline in the case where a child has more than two parents, when it is just and appropriate to do so.Giving Courts the discretion to allocate child support obligations (or receipt of child support) to more than one parent is significant because it allows for the financial responsibility of a child post-divorce to be distributed among all parents who are involved in raising the child based on each parent’s income and respective time spent with the child. As a result, children are afforded the legal opportunity to be financially supported by all of the adults that play a central role in his or her care.
Continue reading

By

In a typical California divorce case, spousal support is awarded based on the need and ability to pay of the parties. However, if there is a history of domestic violence in a case, the spousal support analysis is not so simple. Embedded within California Family Code and cases is the public policy disfavoring an awarded of spousal support from a victim of domestic violence payable to his or her abuser. In making a decision regarding long term spousal support the court is required to consider all of the factors outlined in Family Code § 4320 including domestic violence. In addition, the family courts can make support and property orders in a proceeding brought under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

Family Code § 4320(i) provides that the court shall consider the following circumstances: “Documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in [Fam. Code §6211], between the parties or perpetrated by either party against either party’s child, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.” The Family Code also has provisions creating a presumption that a spousal support award should not be made in favor of a person convicted of a crime of domestic violence.Although the law is clear regarding cases where a finding of domestic violence has been made or where one party has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, what happens if a spousal support hearing is conducted while a domestic violence case is pending? Recently, a California appellate court held that a court may award spousal support in a proceeding brought under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act prior to reaching a conclusion that domestic violence has occurred. Contrary to cases where an alleged domestic violence abuser is requesting support, this recent case addressed the issue of support due to the alleged victim. Domestic violence hearings can get continued out (for months sometimes) for a variety of reasons. The court reasoned that is should not withhold support for an extended period of time just because the domestic violence issues have not been decided.

Domestic violence cases are always emotionally charged and carry significant implications for both parties. It is always important to discuss your domestic violence case with an experienced family law attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.
Continue reading

By

If you open up a fresh copy of the 2014 Family Law Code and do some heavy reading, you might notice the modifications to Section 3040, 4057, 7601, and 8617 as well as the addition of Section 4052.5. Back in October 2013 new legislation was signed which now allows California Courts to recognize that children can have more than two legal parents. Although conservative groups viewed this new legislation as an attack on the traditional family structure, the purpose of these new and modified sections is to address changes in family structure that are often present in California. These include the “not so uncommon anymore” situation of a same-sex couple having a child with a biological parent of the opposite sex.

The basis for the legislation apparently arose as a reaction to a 2011 court decision (In re M.C (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197) that involved a same-sex couple who ended their relationship for a brief amount of time. One of the women conceived a child with a man (and began raising that child with the man) prior to resuming her relationship with the other woman, whom she ended up marrying shortly thereafter. After a fight put one of the women in the hospital and the other in jail, the child was sent to foster care because although all three adults seemed to meet the criteria to be a legal parent of the child, the biological father did not have parental rights under the law at the time. The court reasoned that it was prohibited from recognizing that more than two people may claim a right to parentage.

In response to the Court’s ruling in In re M.C., the Family Code was modified to give Courts the authority to expand the interpretation of the parent and child relationship. Specifically, Family Code Section 7601 provides that Courts are not precluded from making “a finding that a child has a parent and child relationship with more than two parents.”Allowing the Courts to recognize that a child may have three or more legal parents is quite significant for purposes allocating custody and financial responsibility during and after a dissolution proceeding. With regard to the allocation of custody and visitation, Family Code Section 3040 has also been modified to provide for the following: “In cases where a child has more than two parents, the court shall allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to, addressing the child’s need for continuity and stability by preserving established patterns of care and emotional bonds. The court may order that not all parents share legal or physical custody of the child if the court finds that it would not be in the best interest of the child as provided in Sections 3011 and 3020.” [emphasis added].

As a result of this modification, Courts have the ability to prevent children from being separated from an adult that he or she has always known as a “parent” simply because of a technicality in the law. This modified section allows Courts to place the interest of the children first by giving them the authority to protect children from the emotional and psychological impact of being separated from one of his or her parents. Thus, rather than having to place a child in foster care, the Courts are now able to consider the presence of someone who has played a vital parental role in the child’s life.
Continue reading

By

In a recent divorce between Black Keys’ singer, Dan Auerbach, and his former wife, Stephanie Gonis, the parties divided an unusual asset – a lock of Bob Dylan’s hair. This is a perfect example of the family law principle that all property must be divided upon dissolution. In the Auerbach-Gonis divorce, the parties owned a variety of typical assets such as real property, vehicles, and cash; however, all property – including valuable locks of hair must be divided at the time of judgment.

In the beginning of each divorce case, the parties are required to disclose and characterize all property either party has an interest in. “Property” is defined in California Civil Code Section 654 as, “the ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others…the thing of which there may be ownership is called property”. Property can be further characterized as “real” property and “personal” property. Generally in dissolution proceedings, real estate (including the marital residence and vacation homes) are the only “real” property divided. All other property is generally “personal” property.Ultimately Gonis was awarded Bob Dylan’s hair pursuant to the Auerbach-Gonis judgment. According to the California Family Code and applicable California case law, the community estate must be divided equally between the parties. The community estate consists of all the community property acquired by the parties from the date of marriage to the date of separation. In some circumstances, although the estate as a whole can be divided equally in terms of the value each party receives, all assets may not be divisible. It is important to note that all property, including the separate property of both spouses, must be disclosed. Separate property is defined all property acquired by either spouse prior to marriage, after separation, or during marriage by gift, bequest, or devise. If property is determined to be the separate property of one spouse, that property will be confirmed to that spouse in the final judgment without offset for its value.

In a case where a community asset cannot simply be divided in half and distributed to the parties, such as a lock of hair, the parties will have two options. First, the parties can agree on the value of the indivisible item and offset the division of other assets to account for one party receiving the asset in full. Second, the parties can agree to sell the indivisible item and split the proceeds equally. If an asset is easily divisible, such as the funds in a bank account, the parties can each take one-half of the asset without the need for a valuation or sale.
Continue reading

By

It seems like we all spend so long trying to build good credit over the years just for it to be ruined with a snap of the fingers. A divorce doesn’t have to be the culprit in ruining your credit. If you take certain measures while going through a divorce, you can help protect your credit rather than sending it and your financial future to its demise.

Review Your Credit Report
The first step in protecting your credit is to get a copy of your credit report. Once you have a copy of your report it is important to thoroughly review it so that you are well aware of all individual and joint accounts. Perhaps you forgot about a department store credit card that you opened quite some time ago. Reviewing your credit report will get you up to speed on all of your accounts.

Closely Monitor Joint AccountsAfter reviewing your credit report and refreshing your memory of all of your accounts, the next step is to closely monitor them, especially the joint accounts. During or after the divorce, transferring or closing accounts might not occur as quickly as you hope. During this time, it is important that you monitor those accounts closely and catch any missed payments (even if your ex-spouse has agree to make the payment) before your credit gets damaged. If you can’t access the account statements online it would behoove you to request the lender to send you a copy of the account statement each month.

Be Budget Savvy
During a divorce, many people tend to feel like they are drowning financially, either due to various expenses related to the divorce or from frivolous spending habits as a result of the emotional affect that divorce tends to have. The best thing to do in order to tackle the financial woes associated with divorce is to create, implement and track a post-divorce budget that takes into account your income and all of your expenses. Being budget conscious will help you to not allow your expenses to exceed your income and hopefully leave you with a whole lot less debt.

Be Mindful of Authorized Users on Credit Cards
After reviewing your credit report you will be able to note which accounts your spouse is listed on as an authorized user. Being listed as an authorized user means that the person has permission to use the credit card to rack up charged but that he or she is not responsible for paying the bill. This is different than joint credit in which both parties are responsible for paying. If you notice that your ex-spouse is listed as an authorized user, it might be worth it to give the credit card company a call and remove his or her name to avoid any additional problems.

Although divorces can be extremely emotionally draining and time consuming, it’s crucial to your future that you do not to push your finances to the back burner. Being proactive about managing your credit during your divorce will surely help you post-divorce.
Continue reading

By

In a recent controversial New Jersey case, Rachel Canning filed a lawsuit against her parents requesting child support. Canning, a high school senior, alleges her parents kicked her out of their house after she turned 18 years old. Through her attorney, Canning is requesting financial support and an order for her parents to pay her college tuition. Canning’s parents dispute her allegations that she was forced out of their home and argue that Canning left home voluntarily. Apparently a dispute arose between Canning and her parents regarding the rules she should be required to follow while living at home. Essentially Canning is refusing to live at home with her parents who welcome her home but asking for her parents to pay for alternative living arrangements.

Canning is currently living with her best friend’s family. Further, Canning’s best friend’s father is funding her lawsuit against her parents by paying for her attorney fees. The New Jersey judge assigned to the case held that Canning did not have the legal right to request support from her parents and denied her motion. Generally, in California, the custodial parent petition’s the family court to request child support from the other parent. The recent New Jersey case is so controversial because an adult child is suing her parents for financial support in complete contrast to the traditional paradigm.In California child support cases, many parents ask if they have a legal obligation to support their child financially after the child reaches the age of 18. Pursuant to the California Family Code, unless there is an agreement by the parties or an incapacitated adult child meeting various requirements, a parent’s statutory duty to provide child support ends upon the child’s marriage, death, emancipation, at age 19, or at age 18 and is not attending high school full time – whichever occurs first. This means that in some cases, a parent is obligated to support a child after that child reaches the age of majority (18) as long as the child is still a full-time high school student. The reason for this particular provision is that some children start school later than others or are held back a grade. In those cases, the child will graduate high school at age 19 rather than age 18.

It is important to note that there are a variety of cases and statues which specifically deal with the support of an adult child who suffers from an incapacitating disability. These are fact driven cases and should be handled by a Certified Family Law Specialist.
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