San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

June 12, 2012

Miley Cyrus, Too Young for Marriage?

Child superstar Miley Cyrus recently got engaged to fellow actor Liam Hemsworth.

The couple first met in 2009 on the set of the film The Last Song. Although their relationship has been a bit rocky, Cyrus, 19, and Hemsworth, 22, agreed it was time to get married. Much of the recent media attention has been critical of the pending nuptials for the young couple. The main argument against the marriage is that Cyrus is not old enough to make such a commitment. Newly engaged couples are eternally optimistic and excited for the future; however, much talk is already surrounding a potential Cyrus-Hemsworth divorce.

June 7, 2012

Who Pays When the Wedding is Called Off?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

In New York, a man is suing his ex-fiancé for contributions made in contemplation of their upcoming nuptials. Specifically, Steven Silverstein is asking for $19,000, which she allegedly withdrew from their joint bank account prior to the most recent split, $28,000 in rent to represent her ½ contribution for the apartment they shared, and $27,000 he spent in nonrefundable deposits a wedding photographer, hotel rental, videographer, and furniture rentals. The couple was engaged for two years during which Kendra Platt-Lee broke off the pending wedding twice.

Platt-Lee has since moved to San Diego and is pursuing a career in marketing. According to her lawyer, Platt-Lee denies all allegations and even plans to file a countersuit against Silverstein for failure to return her personal belongings. It is her position that relationship was resolved when she returned the $32,000 engagement ring he had given to her. The question for the Manhattan Supreme Court is whether the cash, the rent, and the deposits were all gifts from Silverstein to Platt-Lee or whether he has a right to reimbursement now that she has cancelled the wedding.

June 5, 2012

Temporary Restraining Orders – More Than Just Paper?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

Twenty-two year old Sophia Ortiz obtained a temporary restraining order issued to protect her from the father of her children Julio Martinez. The couple’s two young children are only ages one and two. After the restraining order was issued, Martinez blatantly disobeyed it by appearing at Ortiz’s apartment twice. Each time Ortiz called the local police and by the time they arrived Martinez had fled the scene. The police continued to search for Martinez while he made his way back to the apartment and succeeded in breaking in.According to authorities, upon entry into the apartment, Martinez brutally murdered Ortiz in the presence of his two children. When the police arrived back at the apartment, they discovered Ortiz in the bedroom with a carving knife still in her back; she died during surgery early the next day. The children were physically unharmed and Martinez was apprehended. He is currently being held on one million dollars bail.

Many are outraged by the lack of protection provided to Ortiz by the judicial process, especially the temporary restraining order (TRO). Unfortunately approximately 11% homicides committed throughout the United States between 1979 and 2002 were attributable to domestic violence. Considering this statistic, it is estimated that 3,300 children lose a parent every year to domestic violence related homicides in the United States. However, it is important to note that the TRO was never served on Martinez. Any relationship involving domestic violence can be dangerous for both parties at all times, particularly when the victim attempts to end the relationship and leave his or her abuser. A TRO can provide the victim with the power to have his or her abuser arrested if they violate the stipulations of the order.

In San Diego, an estimated one out of every four children, like Ortiz’s children, is directly exposed to domestic violence either has a victim or a witness. Regardless of whether a child is physically abused, domestic violence will have an enormous impact in many other areas of his or her life. According to the American Psychiatric Association, children merely exposed to domestic violence are at risk for a variety of developmental problems, difficulty in school, aggressive behavior problems, psychiatric disorders, and low self-confidence. In addition to behavioral, developmental, and social consequences to children, children who witness domestic violence may have a resulting impaired educational attainment.
Continue reading

June 1, 2012

Coping with Divorce: You are not alone

By Bickford Blado & Botros

It is never easy, no matter what the situation is, to go through a divorce. Thousands of people right here in San Diego go through divorce each year. A divorce can turn your everyday life upside down and make it feel impossible to move forward. You may be experiencing profound emotions of disappointment, stress, and grief; however it is important to remind yourself that you can and will eventually be able to move on, you just have to take it one day at a time.

Here are three strategies to help you cope with your divorce:

Recognize that it is okay to have feelings; don’t fight them. It is normal to feel angry, sad, exhausted, and confused. You may also feel anxious about the future, and uncertain of what happens next. Even if the marriage was unhealthy, it is frightening to think about the unknown. Grief is a natural reaction to loss, it is essential to the healing process. The pain of grief is precisely what helps you let go of the old relationship and move on. And no matter how strong your grief, it won’t last forever.

Make sure to reach out for support and talk about your feelings. Although it may be difficult, it is important that you work through your emotions. Knowing that you have others around you who know about your feelings or are going through the same thing will make you feel less alone. Find a support group or surround yourself with close friends and family that can help you through this difficult time. It is normal for us as humans to be afraid to ask for help, but you will be pleasantly surprised when you start to let people in. Try to choose people who are positive and will truly listen to you. It is important that you feel you can be honest without feeling judged or criticized about the way you are feeling.
Continue reading

May 31, 2012

Should a Sperm Donor Pay Child Support?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

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.

May 30, 2012

Mark Zuckerberg’s Opportunistic Wedding

By Bickford Blado & Botros

On May 19, 2012, Priscilla Chan married the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. The couple met in 2003 at a fraternity party at Harvard where they both attended college. The wedding ceremony took place at the home they share in Palo Alto and most of the details are still being kept private. However, the wedding date has sparked the most media attention. Mark and Priscilla tied the knot just one day after Mark’s company went public. On his wedding day, Mark owned 503 million shares of Facebook, which at the time, was worth an estimated $17 billion. Sources indicate that Priscilla has no interest in Mark’s fortune. In fact, she recently graduated from medical school at the University of California, San Francisco and plans to pursue a career as a pediatrician.San Diego is located in one of the few states that have adopted community property laws. In community property states, any property acquired prior to marriage is separate property. Separate property will be awarded to the owner upon divorce without offset. Anything acquired after marriage is community property and generally distributed equally upon divorce. According to these laws, any property owned by Mark or Priscilla prior to marriage is their respective separate property and will be distributed to the owner upon divorce. However, after marriage, any earnings of Mark or Priscilla will become community property. In other jurisdictions, courts apply the equitable division rules. Under this statutory scheme, all property owned by either party at divorce is divided equitably by the courts regardless of ownership prior to marriage.

Although Mark has made it clear that his Facebook fortune is his separate property by marrying Priscilla the day after his company went public, the distinction between separate and community property can become blurred over time. Once separate property becomes commingled with community assets, the spouses must keep diligent records of the source of the funds or risk transforming once separate property into community property.

The main question upon the Zuckerberg divorce would be whether Priscilla is entitled to the increased value, if any, of Mark’s Facebook stock. The general rule in California is that stock acquired prior to marriage remains the owner separate property upon divorce or legal separation. However, the Zuckerberg case will be different because it is Mark’s job to continue to contribute to the growth of Facebook as well as its stock. So this situation begs the question – is the increased value of the Facebook stock merely stock or Mark’s earnings during the marriage? One possible solution to this gray area would be the creation of a premarital agreement. Prior to marriage, Priscilla and Mark had the option of determining how the increased value would be divided upon divorce. In the past, Priscilla had Mark sign a “relationship agreement” outlining the details of their relationship before she would agree to move to California to be with him. Considering the massive fortune at stake and the previous history between the parties, it is likely that the parties executed a premarital agreement prior to marriage.

May 24, 2012

Obama Announces Support for Same-Sex Marriage

By Bickford Blado & Botros

On May 8, 2012 President Barack Obama declared his support for gay marriage. This announcement instantly sparked both criticism and celebration. Considering that America will elect its next President this year, Obama effectively brought the issue of gay marriage to the political forefront. Obama has clarified that his announcement only represented his personal opinion and reaffirmed that questions regarding marriage are to be decided by the states.

Just as individuals have polarized over the issue of gay marriage, so have the states. All states agree that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to marry is recognized under the umbrella of the fundamental right to privacy. Also under the right to privacy are other fundamental rights such as procreation, custody of one’s children, and the right to make decisions regarding the child’s upbringing. Further, because the right to marry is so fundamental, the government is not permitted to infringe on that right without passing strict scrutiny. The government has the burden to prove that a law or regulation is narrowly drawn to further a compelling government interest. “Narrowly drawn” is often interpreted to mean the least restrictive means of achieving that actual compelling interest. The states that have prohibited same-sex marriage interpret the right to marry as only protected when the marriage involves a man and a woman.

May 21, 2012

A New Rising Trend in Alimony?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

In San Diego, many courts award spousal support in various family law hearings. A new survey has sparked a family law debate, who pays alimony more often – men or women? The new survey indicates that more women are paying alimony than ever before. However many practicing attorneys argue that, although women pay support in a few cases, men still are responsible for the majority of support payments.Alimony, more commonly known as spousal support in family law, is set by a judge or agreed upon by the parties in many family law cases. The amount of the award and the length of the obligation is dependent on a number of factors including: the needs and abilities of the parties, the length of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the marriage, and any other factor the court deems relevant. In the past, many states had laws providing that only men could be ordered to pay spousal support to their wives.

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court decided a case entitled Orr v. Orr and created new Constitutional standards for spousal support laws. It is rare that the Supreme Court hears a case involving questions of family law because these issues are generally left to the states to decide. However, the Court determined that laws that prohibited courts from ordering women to pay spousal support were in violation of the United States Constitution. In Orr v. Orr, an Alabama statute permitted alimony to be awarded to wives but not to husbands. The stated rationale for this law was that the state was address the economic disparity between men and women and protecting women in financial need following a divorce. The Supreme Court analyzed the law under an intermediate scrutiny standard because it discriminated based on gender. The state had the burden to prove that the law was substantially related to an important government interest. The state did not meet that burden and the law was overturned.

Spousal support and child support typically go hand-in-hand. With the men’s rights groups on the rise, many fathers are finding new and more effective ways to seek custody of their children. Previously, the Tender Years Presumption was applied throughout the United States, including California. Under the Tender Years Presumption, mothers were presumptively given custody of children still in their “tender” years. Several courts have held that this presumption is unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court overturned the Alabama law in Orr v. Orr. Thus, the Tender Years Presumption was replaced almost uniformly with some variation of the “best interest standard” in child custody cases. Under the current standards, San Diego family courts often make both child support and spousal support awards in favor of men. However, many attorneys still debate whether these awards amount to a significant enough number to equalize the spousal and child supports awarded in favor of women.

May 17, 2012

Domestic Violence in the Spotlight

By Bickford Blado & Botros

The overnight hit television show Glee has become extremely popular with its teenage audience. The show follows a group of fictional high school students as journey through their teenage years. One of the show’s attractions is its many singing and dancing numbers performed by the students for their glee class. Glee’s most recent episode entitled “Choke” featured a more serious topic, domestic violence. Harsh criticism has followed the show’s depiction of this important cause, one critic stated “Choke is a morally reprehensible hour of television, one from which the show many never fully recover.” The most common complaint from viewers and supporters of the fight against domestic violence is that the show gave the topic an “insultingly short shrift”.

May 16, 2012

Could Octomom Lose Custody of Her Children?

By Bickford Blado & Botros

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).