Family Law Lawyers Bakersfield CA | When Husband Owes Rent to Wife

statue of lady justice for California Proposition 8

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that Watts charges [a party having sole use of both parties’ community property asset, i.e., home, after separation can be charged for that party’s sole use, i.e., reasonable rental value of the home] may be ordered against Husband where Husband lived in his separate property house after the parties’ date of separation and Moore/Marsden formula gave the community a beneficial interest in the house because payments during the marriage were made with community property funds. In the case of In re Marriage of Mohler, Husband bought a house for $168,000, taking title in his sole name in February of 1995, prior to the parties’ marriage. Husband and Wife were married in September of 1998. They lived in the House until they separated on July 2, 2011. The payments on the House were made with community property funds [the parties’ earnings during the marriage] until that date. The principle reduction on the mortgage loan on the House was reduced during the parties’ marriage to the tune of $56,557. After they separated, Husband lived in the House and paid the house payments with his separate property funds [his earnings after the parties’ date of separation].

At trial in 2017, Trial Court valued the House at $530,000. The parties agreed that the Moore/Marsden formula [when community pays for one party’s separate property House during the marriage, the community gets reimbursed based on principle reduction of the loan on the House and appreciation in value of the house during the marriage] should be used to calculate the community property interest in the House acquired by making the mortgage payments. Using that formula, Trial Court calculated that the community property interest amounted to 33.66%, or $172,684 (appreciation value plus mortgage principle reduction). However, Wife argued that the community property interest must be increased to 64.9% to include the six (6) years that Husband lived in the House after the parties’ separation. In essence, Wife was arguing that she had to wait for six (6) years to receive her community property share in the House while Husband was solely enjoying the House and thus, her community property interest should be increased.

Trial Court agreed and re-calculated the community property interest under the Moore/Marsden formula at $332,944, which included Husbands separate property payments of $52,482 [payments he made on the mortgage after the date of separation]. Husband appealed and now the California Court of Appeals has vacated Trial Court’s order and has remanded the case back to Trail Court with directions as to how to resolve the case.

The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) by making payments on Husbands separate property House with community property funds [parties earnings during the marriage], the community acquired a beneficial interest in House the amount of which is calculated by the application of the Moore/Marsden formula;(2) the community ceases to acquire a beneficial interest in a spouses separate property when community property payments stop or date of separation occurs; (3) Trial Court erred by applying the Moore/Marsden formula beyond the date of separation after which Husband made house payments with his separate property [his earnings after the date of separation]; and (4) if any compensation is due to the community by reason of Husbands living in the House after the parties separation, it must be calculated as Watts charges. According to the Appellate Court, where, as here, the community does not own the property outright but instead maintains a beneficial partial interest in the property due to a Moore/Marsden calculation, Watts charges may be applied. Therefore, the Appellate Court has remanded the case back to Trial Court for further proceedings in line with this opinion.

Parental Rights of Father Terminated for Abandonment

silhoutte portrait showing Parental Rights to children

In the case of In re A.B., Mother and Father met in November of 2005. They lived together for four years, during which Father used both alcohol and pot. When Mother learned that she was pregnant, she broke up with Father and moved out. In November of 2009, Mother gave birth to their Child. Father was not present for Childs birth, but arrived three hours later with a pizza and a request to hold Child. Father was not named as Childs father on Childs birth certificate.

After Childs birth, Father tried to give Mother a $50 money order, and to buy baby food, but Mother rejected both offers. After that, Father did not see Mother and Child until January of 2010, when he spent two hours with them. Soon thereafter, Mother contacted the Department of Child Support Services, seeking to have Father pay child support. In September of 2010, after a paternity test determined that Father was Childs biological father, Trial Court issued a child support order, which Father paid consistently through wage garnishment. However, Father did not obtain the health insurance for Child that Trial Court also ordered. Meanwhile, Father occasionally attempted to see Mother and Child, but was unsuccessful. Father obtained the necessary forms to seek a Trial Court visitation order, but never followed through, apparently because he lacked the $400 filing fee.

In April of 2013, Mother began dating Husband. A few months later, Husband became involved in [Childs] care, and later began supporting Mother and Child financially. Child called Husband Daddy and became very bonded to him. Mother and Child moved in with Husband in the fall of 2014, and Mother and Husband subsequently married. Meanwhile, after Mother had a falling out with her family, Father sent Mother a letter in which he told her that he would seek visitation with Child by the time Child turned five.

In October of 2014, Father filed a request for visitation, claiming that he had cleaned up his act and wanted to develop a parental relationship with Child. Father also contended that Mother should permit Childs Grandmother to visit Child and to let him visit with Child at Grandmothers house. After Mother and Father participated in mediation, Trial Court ordered a therapist to monitor Fathers introduction to and visitation with Child. During several therapy sessions, Father and Child developed a minimal relationship.

In March of 2015, Husband filed a petition to terminate Fathers parental rights and to adopt Child. Father reluctantly met with a Social Worker, who recommended against termination of his parental rights after concluding that Father had no intent to abandon Child and had not done so. However, at the hearing on Husbands petition, Social Worker testified that during Fathers lengthy absence from Childs life, Husband had stepped in to provide stability and continuity for Child, specifically during the past two years. Social Worker also saw a connection between Fathers request for visitation and Mothers failed relationship with Grandmother. Father and Mothers family members testified about Fathers many unsuccessful attempts to contact Mother by letter and phone. Mother testified that Father called her periodically, but never asked for visitation, and admitted changing her phone number, but leaving her old voice mail. Mother said she did not return many of Fathers messages because she didnt want to encourage Father to hope for resumption of their relationship. When the hearing concluded, Trial Court found that Mother was the more credible party, Fathers testimony suggested that he did not show any active interest in visiting Child before 2014, Father failed to have meaningful contact with Child for a period of more than one year and paid only sporadic support, and Childs relationship with Husband supported a finding that adoption would be in Childs best interests. Claiming, among other things, that Trial Court should have considered only the preceding year in determining whether Father abandoned Child, Father appealed, but a California Court of Appeals has reaffirmed Trial Courts decision.

The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) as pertinent here, California Family Code Section 7822(a)(3) provides that a Trial Court may terminate the parental rights of a parent who has left his or her child in the other parents custody for a period of one year without communication and with the intent to abandon the child; (2) neither that statute nor the applicable case law provides that the one-year period has to be the year immediately preceding the filing of the California Family Code Section 7822 petition; (3) Fathers failure to make more that token efforts to communicate with Child for well over the one year period support Trial Courts finding of abandonment (need not be evidence of intent to totally abandon Child); (4) there is substantial evidence that Husbands adoption of Child would be in Childs best interests; and (5) Trial Courts finding that Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply in this case is not supported where one tribe out of four tribes who were contacted failed to respond until after termination judgment, but that error is harmless because there is no reasonable probability of a more favorable result.

Family Law Bakersfield CA Regarding Annulment of Marriage

statue of lady justice symbol for law on Registration of Marriage Certificate

In the case of In re Marriage of Goodwin-Mitchell and Mitchell, Wife helped her Jamaican first husband obtain his green card, their marriage ended in divorce. In January 2015, she met another Jamaican (Husband) online, and they began dating over the internet. Husband told Wife that he wanted to come to the U.S., live with her, have a restaurant business, and join the U.S. Army. He started to discuss marriage between February and March of 2015. In June of 2015, Wife traveled to Jamaica to meet Husband for the first time. While she was visiting him, they got married.

Wife returned to the U.S. and applied for a two-year visa for Husband. The application was approved in September of 2016 and Husband joined Wife in November of 2016. According to Wife, Husband started soliciting call girls, prostitution, and other women off of sites within a week of his arrival.

In February 2017, Husband was jailed for several days after an incident of domestic violence, and Trial Court issued a restraining order against him. While Husband was in incarcerated, Wife discovered text messages he sent to his mother which indicated that he was staying with Wife until he got his papers and was urging her and his brother to come to the U.S. too. She also found text messages between Husband and another woman in which he repeatedly said he loved her, explained that he could not leave Wife until he got his papers or the Army came through, and said he would get a divorce when he could.

When Husband got out of jail, Wife let him come back home and she had the restraining order lifted. They resumed fully cohabiting, but no longer held themselves out as a couple. Wife would later say that she felt legally responsible for him until he was given permanent resident status.

However, in March of 2017, Wife found out that Husband had sex with another woman in their home. In June of 2017, Wife filed for an annulment on the basis of fraud or alternatively for a divorce. Still, Husband and Wife continued to live together and have sexual relations until November of 2017, when Wife asked him to move out.

At a subsequent hearing, Wife testified to the above-related facts and assertions. When Husband testified, he denied soliciting women on the internet, and claimed that the women in Jamaica was just a friend. He said he had told her that he loved her because hed been traumatized in jail, and was seeking comfort for his emotional wounds. In response to Husbands denial of cheating, Wife testified that he had taped himself having sex in their home with another woman. She described the sounds that led her to believe that sex was occurring, but did not submit the tape in evidence. Wife stated the she had found the womans phone number on Husbands phone, along with numbers for escort services, and had actually spoken with the woman. Husband then testified that the woman was an acquaintance who stopped by the house and had come on to him and demanded sex during her visit. Husband maintained that they did not have sex and that the woman was the one who recorded their encounter in order to get sexual favors from him.

When the hearing concluded, Trial Court, in a ruling from the bench, summarized the facts, noting that Husband had engaged in two relationships with other women before he had been in the U.S. for a year. Trial Court reasoned that Wife and Husband owed each other a duty of fidelity, to live together (not just cohabit) in full confidence of fidelity. Concluding that this was not the case here, Trial Court granted Wifes petition for an annulment. Claiming that Wife failed to prove the elements required for an annulment for fraud under California Family Code Section 2210(d), Husband appealed, and California Court of Appeals has now reversed the Trial Courts decision.

The Court of Appeals has ruled that (1) fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that it directly defeats the marriage relationship; (2) under the case of In re Marriage of Ramirez (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 751, a fraudulent intent to be unfaithful held by a spouse at the time of the marriage may support an annulment; (3) under Family Code Section 2210(d), a party whose consent to marry was obtained by fraud may not obtain an annulment on the grounds of fraud if he or she freely cohabits with the offending spouse after gaining full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud; and (4) here, Wife continued to live with and have sex with Husband for eight months after she taped Husbands sexual encounter in their home. The Appellate Court thus holds that Trial Court made a mistake by granting an annulment on these facts and it reverses Trial Courts Judgment of Annulment, and sends the case back to Trial Court for proceedings on Wifes alternative petition for divorce.

Party Wanting to Change Custody Must Show Changed Circumstances

statue of lady justice symbol for law on Registration of Marriage Certificate

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that Trial Court was not wrong in finding that lack of changed circumstances defeated Mothers request for change of custody. It has further held that prior judges comments regarding what could constitute changed circumstances in connection with permanent custody orders are not binding on the judge who presides over a new request for modification of that order.

In the case of Anne H. v. Michael B., Mother gave birth to Fathers child in 2009. Less than a year later, Father left the armed services, but Mother stayed in. Father moved in with Mother, who was going to law school, and began attending grad school. When Father finished school, he got a job in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, both Mother and Father had sole care of Child for brief periods, while the other was away. During those times, Mothers parents and sister helped to care for Child. Mother completed law school in 2012, and in August of 2012, she was posted to Georgia as a JAG officer. Mother and Father agreed that Child would stay with Father until they could agree on a custody plan.

In February of 2013, Father filed a petition in Santa Clara County Superior Court for full custody of Child. Soon, Mother filed a paternity action in San Mateo County Superior Court and Father dismissed his petition. In August of 2014, after a short trial, Trial Court issued a lengthy statement of decision, in which it awarded Mother and Father joint custody of Child and ordered Child to spend the school year with Father and summer vacations with Mother. This judge based his custody determination on Mothers ability to stay with her parents and other family when visiting Child, the benefit to Child of continued stability in her custody situation, and the likelihood that Mother would be posted to various locations. Trial Court stated that the presence of Mothers family members in the Bay Area was the most significant factor and commented that Mothers family members moving from the Bay Area would constitute a change of circumstances requiring a new analysis of the ongoing custodial timeshare between the parties.

In May of 2015, Mother filed a request for custody modification, seeking custody of Child during the school year, citing her new posting (to last for 5-6 years) and claiming that her parents move to a home near hers in Virginia constituted a change of circumstances under the existing custody order. Mother attached copy of a grant deed showing that her parents and brother had bought a Virginia property, but her parents did not file declarations. Mother also alleged that Father failed to permit her parents to have access to Child. In opposition, Father stated his belief that the grandparents had retained ownership of their Bay Area house and continued to live there. Father denied failing to cooperate with the grandparents requests for visitation, and claimed that Mothers job gave her greater flexibility to visit Child in the Bay Area than his did for visiting Child in Virginia. Father also sought California Family Code Section 271 sanctions of $15,000 to cover the attorneys fees he incurred in responding to Mothers five ex parte (emergency) applications for custody between 2013, and 2014. Father claimed that Mother could afford sanctions of that amount because of her earnings. In response, Mother claimed that she no longer had relatives with whom she could stay in the Bay Area and denied that her financial position was that rosy.

After the hearing on Mothers custody request, Trial Court found that Mother failed to show significant changed circumstances and denied her request. Trial Court also imposed Family Code Section 271 sanctions of $5,000 on Mother.

Claiming that Trial Courts denial of custody change was inconsistent with prior custody order and the sanctions order was an abuse of discretion, Mother appealed. Now, in a partially-published opinion, the California Court of Appeals has affirmed Trial Courts rulings. The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) the first Judges comments regarding potential change of circumstances if Mothers family moved from Bay Area are not binding on the next Judge (there is no res judicata [that which has already been decided] or collateral estoppel because those statements did not relate to the issue of current custody arrangements before Trial Court when they were made); (2) the first Judges comments were not the type of ruling that cannot be altered by succeeding Judge; (3) giving binding effect to those comments would mean that succeeding Judges could not consider current circumstances in deciding whether to order custody modification (prior judge could not know what circumstances would be important when modification is requested); and (4) in this case, the second Judges finding of no changed circumstances was not an abuse of discretion (substantial evidence supported Fathers belief that Mothers parents had not actually relocated, insufficient evidence showing that custody change would be in Childs best interests, and many family members remained in Bay Area).

In the unpublished part of the opinion, the Appellate Court has noted that the sanctions request was based on a background of other purportedly litigious conduct by Mother and that sanctions order was justified on the basis that her conduct frustrated settlement. In addition, evidence showed that the $5,000 order was not an unreasonable financial burden on Mother.

Wife Not Entitled to an Amount of Support Sufficient to Maintain the Marital Standard of Living

father and son playing in the beach

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that Trial Court was not wrong by concluding that the funds in the parties brokerage account were a marital community loan from Mothers parents (not a gift) or by ordering stepped-down spousal support payments that were not in an amount sufficient to maintain the marital standard of living. In the case of In re Marriage of Grimes and Mou, Father and Mother were married in January of 2004, and separated in July of 2015. Father filed for divorce in April of 2016. During the marriage, Father worked as an engineering manager at Google/YouTube earning a six-figure base salary, plus bonuses. Mother, a Chinese immigrant who is fluent in English and Mandarin and held a masters degree in finance, worked as a treasury analyst and generally earned six-figures as well. From 2011, through 2015, Mother and Fathers yearly gross income rose from $316,260 to $778,660. They had a middle to upper middle-class lifestyle in Palo Alto, a child in private school, three cars, yearly vacations, and regular restaurant meals.

For a year after separation, Father paid the rent and utilities on the Palo Alto house to the tune of over $5,000 per month. Father estimated that he had paid voluntary spousal support to Mother of between $250,000 and $300,000 from July of 2015, to May of 2018.

When the parties decided to buy a house, Mother assured Father that she could get money from her brother or her parents, as a gift or a loan. A total of $229,936 was deposited into Mothers brokerage account from various relatives. However, when Father filed their joint income tax returns for 2014, and 2015, he reported gains from the account as income to him and Mother.

At trial, a vocational expert testified that at age 49, Mother would be a little disadvantaged in the job market, but that she was readily employable and able to work toward being self-supporting. The expert opined that there was a range of appropriate jobs for someone with Mothers education and work history, and that she was capable of earning between $101,008 and $123,257 annually.

As to the funds in the brokerage account, Mother testified that after she and Father decided not to buy a house, she offered to return the money that her relatives had provided, but they told her to keep it and invest it for them. Father said he believed that the funds were a gift or at worst, a loan.

After hearing evidence and argument, Trial Court found that the funds at issue in the brokerage account had not been shown to be a gift from Mothers parents, but rather a loan to the community. Trial Court ordered the loan debt divided equally between the parties, with each party to pay half of the loan to Mothers relatives. Trial Court ordered the rest of the brokerage funds divided equally between Mother and Father. Trial Court ordered Father to pay step-down spousal support to Mother of $3,000 per month from June 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019, plus 20% of Fathers additional income over $300,000; $2,000 per month from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021; and $1,000 per month from January 1, 2022, through November 30, 2026. Trial Court noted that after it set Mothers earning capacity at $90,000, she got a job earning $96,000, but found that Mothers job search efforts were not appropriately and fully focused. Trial Court set the termination of spousal support at either partys death, Mothers remarriage, further court order or written agreement, or the date that the youngest child reached age 18 (November 30, 2026).

On October 29, 2018, Trial Court issued further findings and orders after hearing, ordering Mother to transfer half of the brokerage funds to Father and ordering Father to pay his half of the loan debt directly to Mother.

Claiming that Trial Court erred by characterizing brokerage funds as a loan and ordering so little spousal support, Mother appealed the first order after hearing. On January 23, 2019, Trial Court entered a divorce judgment that incorporated the earlier order.

Now, acting on Mothers appeal, California Court of Appeals has affirmed Trial Courts decisions. The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) Mother appealed from an unappealable order but justices choose to treat her appeal as having been taken from the January 23, 2019, judgment since it did not implicate the October 2018, order and doing so will not prejudice Father; (2) on the present record, Trial Court could reasonably reject Mothers testimony regarding the brokerage funds and infer that the parties treated the funds as a loan; and (3) Trial Courts spousal support award was not an abuse of discretion since Trial Court was not required to order support sufficient to maintain the parties marital standar of living, Trial Court considered the appropriate Family Code Section 4320 factors, and Mother could reasonably be expected to become self-supporting.

Father must Pay Half of Daycare Costs Even If Mother’s Choice to Further Her Education Is Voluntary and Not Required by Her Employer

couple with three children holding hands while walking

In reversal of a Trial Court, a California Court of Appeals has ruled that California Family Code Section 4062 permits an award of childcare costs to a parent who is currently employed with marketable skills, but seeks to improve those skills through education in order to become self-supporting and not need public assistance. In the case of Greiner v. Keller, Trial Court entered a judgment in 2015, that, among other things, awarded sole legal and physical custody of Mother and Fathers minor Child to Mother, and required Father to pay one-half of reasonable childcare costs for Child.

In May of 2018, Mother sought an order, per Family Code Section 4062, forcing Father to pay one-half of reasonable childcare costs incurred while Mother attended classes and participated in computer courses at the public library, all aimed at becoming a paralegal. In her supporting declaration, Mother stated that she was laid off from a government job in 2011, after which she was able to find only temporary or part-time positions as a notary and office assistant, mostly in law offices. Mother believed that acquiring additional skills would help her get full-time employment and she would no longer need public assistance for housing and food.

In opposition, Father argued that Family Code Section 4062 did not authorize an award of childcare costs where a parent had existing job skills that enabled him or her to secure employment. Father pointed out that Mothers current employer was not requiring her to pursue additional training; it was her personal choice to do so.

After a hearing, Trial Court found that Mothers request exceeded the requirements of section 4062 which does not apply where a parent has existing skills and was able to gain employment. Accordingly, Trial Court denied Mothers request.

Mother appealed, and now, the California Court of Appeals has reversed Trial Courts decision. Deciding this issue for the first time, the Appellate Court has ruled that (1) the plain language of Family Code Section 4062 permits Trial Court to make an order for shared childcare costs related to a parents employment or for reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills; (2) the statute does not limit its scope to parents who do not have existing skills sufficient to enable them to find employment; (3) the case of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467, on which Trial Court relied, is inapposite because it involved a request for elective education by a parent who could be self-supporting but chose not to work; and (4) this case exemplifies why the Legislature enacted section 4062. Therefore, the Appellate Court reverses Trial Courts denial of Mothers request and sends the case back to Trial Court with directions to reconsider it on its merits, including a determination of whether Mothers educational efforts were reasonably necessary, Mother had actually incurred childcare costs, and the amount and appropriate apportionment of those costs.

Woman Who Had Sex With Minor Is Not Entitled to Spousal Support

hourglass, gavel, weighing scale and lady justice tools on the table

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a trial court properly denied spousal support to Mother who inflicted domestic violence on her children and caused them psychological damage through her conviction and incarceration for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (one of their friends).

In the case of In re Marriage of Schu, Mother and Father were married in 1986, and subsequently had three children who are now adults. Between 1995, and 2001, Father worked in the oil industry in Algeria, spending 28 days there, and then 28 days at home.

Meanwhile, Mother became sexually attracted to one of childrens best friend (Victim), while Victim was still a child. When Victim was 12-years-old, Mother began having oral sex with him. Later the relationship progressed to intercourse, which continued until Victim went to college. On weekends, Mother would provide alcohol for her oldest child and his underage friends, and show them porn movies. The kids would drink until they were sick. The parties oldest son would have sex with underage girls in the house; Mother would have sex with Victim. Although Victim, who wanted to end the relationship, would plead and cry, Mother insisted that he continue to have sex with her. Mother threatened to tell Victims friends and family if he stopped.

The parties children all suspected that something was going on between Mother and Victim, but had no confirmation of the relationship until the parties second child came home to find Mother in the shower and Victim in only a towel. The parties oldest child became concerned after finding Mother and Victim in the bedroom with the door locked. The youngest child wondered why Victim was there when his best friend, the parties oldest child, was not. Fearful that the affair was discussed on the internet, Mother demanded that the second child give her Victims sisters social media password. When the second child refused, Mother had the oldest child hold the second child down while she cut a big chunk out of her very long hair. After that, the second child found it humiliating to go to school with her hair cut.

Subsequently, her home situation caused the second child to develop emotional issues serious enough to make her believe she needed counseling. When she asked Mother to send her to a counselor, Mother warned that a counselor would take her away. Second child understood this to mean that she was to keep quiet about things at home. Therefore, she kept her feelings bottled up to the extent that her friends called her mannequin; she also stated that she never wanted to have children.

Mother was subsequently arrested and pled no contest to seven counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. She was later sentenced to six years in prison. She and Father also began divorce proceedings, and Father paid her $500 per month for spousal support. After their divorce trial, Trial Court found that Mother had sufficient assets to be self-supporting, including $160,000 of her own money, and her name on five to six bank accounts with her father. Mother also received about $914,000 in the community property division, in which she got half of Fathers retirement. Citing California Family Code Section 4320 sections (I) [trial court must consider documented evidence of domestic violence], (m), (n)[other just and equitable factors considered], and (k) [trial court must balance hardships], Trial Court refused to order spousal support for Mother.

Claiming that Trial Court impermissibly considered fault in denying spousal support, Mother appealed. Now, California Court of Appeals has affirmed Trial Courts decision. The Appellate Court has ruled that:

(1) California Family Code Section 2335 precludes Trial Court from admitting evidence of specific acts of misconduct in connection with the divorce case [e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute;

(2) Family Code Section 4320 is that statute and mandates that Trial Court consider all enumerated factors before making spousal support order, several of which involve acts of misconduct;

(3) Family Code Section 4320(i) requires Trial Court to consider documented evidence of history of domestic violence by party seeking spousal support;

(4) Here, Trial Court correctly determined that Mothers conduct in permitting the oldest child to drink alcohol to the point of nausea and in cutting second childs hair as punishment constitutes domestic violence (physical and emotional abuse);

(5) Mother provided the oldest child with alcohol and porn and assaulted the second child in order to molest Victim, refused to obtain psychological help for the second child, humiliated and psychologically devastated all three children by being arrested and convicted of sex crimes, and caused inestimable harm to Victim, all of which more than justified Trial Court in denying spousal support to Mother. Finding Mothers assets sufficient for her support (she has beneficial interest in accounts held jointly with her father), the Appellate Court affirms Trial Courts denial of spousal support.

Father Allowed to Talk about the Divorce Case and Bad-mouth Mother on Facebook

family happily playing on the beach at sunset for impute income to Mother on welfare case

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that wording in a Domestic Violence Prevention Act restraining order that prohibits Father from posting anything about the parties divorce on Facebook is an overbroad and invalid prior restraint on Fathers constitutional right of free speech and must be removed from the order. In the case of Molinaro v. Molinaro, Mother and Father were married in 1997, and they ended up having three children together. On July 11, 2016, Mother filed for divorce. At that time, two of the children were still minors.

On January 6, 2017, Mother filed an ex parte application for a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) restraining order against Father. In her supporting declaration, Mother stated that on January 1, 2017, her siblings and friends were helping her move out of the family home, when Father got into a verbal altercation with them. After Father moved his car to block the moving van from backing out of the driveway, Mother called police, who eventually detained Father. Mother then finished moving out. Mother also stated that Father had restrained her from leaving the family home on two prior occasions, and that Fathers erratic behavior had caused her to put locks on her bedroom door out of fear. Father, she said, then told her that if she didnt remove the locks, he would throw a chair through the bedroom window. Mother expressed fear that Father would retaliate after she moved out and reported that Father had already found where she now lived and was posting the address and a picture of the house on the internet.

Mother asked Trial Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order requiring Father to stay 100 yards away from her and Children and to order Father to attend a batterer intervention program. Mother also sought sole custody of their minor children.

Trial Court declined to order a Temporary Restraining Order, citing lack of sufficient proof, and scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2017. At that hearing, Father sought a continuance, which Mother did not oppose. Mother asked Trial Court to order Father to stop posting everything about the divorce on Facebook and stop giving Children copies of Mothers pleadings. When Trial Court questioned Fathers reasons for giving minor children copies of the pleadings, Father replied that it was his best judgment. Trial Court then advised Father that it would issue an order prohibiting him from discussing the case with the minors. At that time, Father made allegations regarding Mothers behavior, stated that he understood the order, but question[ed] the sanity. Trial Court then clarified that Father was precluded from posting on Facebook any posting that would violate the no-discussion order.

At a continued hearing on February 15, 2017, Mother testified that Father was still posting on Facebook about the divorce case, and had sent police to her home on a wellness check when she was at work. Mother stated that some of Fathers postings accused her of wrongfully removing community property, called her crazy, and claimed she was having hallucinations. Mother also testified that Father sent her and her attorney emails with vulgar salutations and name calling, all of which caused her fear and stress. Mother claimed that Fathers behavior was getting worse and worse. Father declined to cross-examine Mother, but asked that Children be allowed to testify. Trial Court denied that request, granted a three-year restraining order to Mother, and ordered Father to stay 100 yards away from Mother and all three Children, and not to post anything on Facebook . . . in regards to this action.

When Trial Court asked Father if he understood the order, Father claimed not to, called trial judge insane, and claimed that the order lacked evidentiary basis and reason. Trial Court then questioned Mother and Father regarding custody and visitation, but opined that mediation, which Mothers counsel sought, would not be productive at this time because of Fathers behavior. Father then demanded to know what behavior Trial Court was discussing, at which point the bailiff warned Father to stop yelling. In response to Trial Courts order for monitored visitation, Father refused to cooperate in finding a professional monitor. Trial Court then ordered Father to attend anger management classes, which further upset Father, who made several disrespectful and sarcastic comments to Trial Court, to no avail. In a written attachment to the restraining order, Trial Court ordered the parties not to post anything about the case on Facebook and not to discuss the case with the children.

After moving unsuccessfully for a new trial, Father appealed from the restraining order and, in a partially-published opinion, California Court of Appeals reverses in part and affirms in part Trial Courts decisions.

In the published part of the opinion, Appellate Court found that (1) in the case of Candiotti (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 718, the appellate court held that a custody order that limits parents right to communicate with third parties about custody matters was an unconstitutional prior restraint; (2) here, as there, the part of the restraining order that prohibits Father from posting information about the case on Facebook is overbroad (not narrowly tailored to limit speech that relates to Children or disparaging Mother); and (3) that part of the restraining order is overbroad, constitutes an invalid prior restraint of Fathers free speech rights and must be removed from the order. Therefore, Appellate Court reversed that part of the restraining order with directions to Trial Court to strike it from the order and affirms the rest of the order.

In the unpublished part of the opinion, the Appellate Court found that Trial Courts finding of abuse is supported by substantial evidence; Father forfeited his contention that the DVPA is void for vagueness by failing to raise the issue at trial; and Trial Court did not err by including Mother and Fathers adult daughter as a person protected by the restraining order.

Husband’s Spousal Support Obligation Should’ve Been Terminated Since Wife Failed to Show Up to the Hearing

statue of lady justice for California Proposition 8

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that Wifes Income and Expense Declaration was inadmissible hearsay where Wife was not present to be cross-examined at the hearing on Husbands motion to terminate his espousal support obligation and she had filed no response. According to the Appellate Court, Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to terminate Husbands espousal support obligation and basing its order for reduced espousal support on Wifes Income and Expense Declaration.

In the case of In re Marriage of Swain, Husband and Wife were married in July of 1994, and separated in October of 2005. On February 13, 2007, Trial Court filed their stipulated divorce judgment which provided, among other things, that Husband would pay Wife espousal support of $2,600 per month and that Wife is expected to be self-supporting by January 2008. If she was not, the judgment provided that Trial Court could attribute $2,500 per month to her as her earning ability.

Husband filed unsuccessful motions to modify or terminate espousal support in 2008 and 2009. On December 30, 2016, Husband filed another Request For Order, seeking to terminate espousal support. In his supporting declaration, Husband stated that he was retiring and that Wife would begin receiving her share of his retirement benefits in an amount close to the amount of espousal support he was now paying. Wife was served on May 2, 2017, but she did not file a response or make an appearance at the hearing. Trial Court then continued the hearing to June 13, 2017, and ordered the parties to file Income and Expense Declarations at least 10 days before that date. Wife did so, but filed nothing else with the Court.

At the hearing, Husbands attorney objected to Wifes Income and Expense Declaration because Wife was not present to be cross-examined as to its content and had not asked that it be put into evidence. Trial Court responded Okay. All right. Trial Court then accepted a letter from Calpers, stating that Wifes monthly payments from Husbands retirement benefits were $2,630 per month, effective December 31, 2016. Husband testified about the various physical ailments that prevented him from doing his job and precipitated his retirement at age 56. Husbands counsel then asked Trial Court if Wifes Income and Expense Declaration would be received as evidence. Trial Court replied that the Income and Expense Declaration was filed, but I wasnt going to look at it.

On June 14, 2017, Trial Court issued a Statement of Decision in which it found that Husbands retirement was voluntary, that his medical issues did not affect his ability to earn, and that his retirement was insignificant in light of the marital standard of living. Trial Court also found that Husband had shown a material change of circumstances in Wifes income, since she would be receiving the retirement payments. After considering the appropriate California Family Code Section 4320 factors (all the listed factors that the court must consider in ordering or modifying a long term espousal support), Trial Court looked to Wifes Income and Expense Declaration to determine her need for support, noting that it was executed under penalty of perjury and could be considered testimony, but its weight would be limited due to Wifes unavailability for cross-examination. Trial Court then reduced Husbands espousal support payments to $750 per month, but declined to terminate espousal support.

Claiming that Trial Court erred by considering Wifes Income and Expense Declaration where she was unavailable for cross-examination, Husband appealed, and now a California Court of Appeals has agreed with Husband and has reversed Trial Courts decision. The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) Family Code Section 217 precludes Trial Court from considering Wifes Income and Expense Declaration (it is inadmissible hearsay) where Husband sought to exclude it and Wife was not available for cross-examination; and (2) Trial Court lacked sufficient evidence to determine Wifes need absent inadmissible Income and Expense Declaration (it had only Husbands evidence regarding her retirement benefits). The Appellate Court has ruled that Trial Court erred by considering Wifes Income and Expense Declaration to determine her need for support and abused its discretion by ordering any espousal support and declining to terminate support. The Appellate Court has reversed Trial Courts support order and terminates Husbands espousal support obligation.

Husband is the Father of the Child and Not the Biological Father Who Was Wife’s Boyfriend

family on a nature hike

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a Trial Court was not wrong in concluding that biological father who sought to establish a parental relationship with his biological child did not qualify as her presumed father because he failed to receive her into his home as required by California Family Code Section 7611(d). In order to meet the receiving requirement, biological father needs to show that he assumed parental responsibilities, not just that child was occasionally present in his home.

In the case of W.S. v. S.T., Mother and Father were married in 2002. Later that year, Mother gave birth to their Son. Mother and Father separated in 2006, at which time Mother filed for divorce and they began living apart. During their separation, in 2007 or 2008, Mother met Boyfriend at work and began a relationship with him. Boyfriend believed that Mother was divorced and lived with her mother.

In 2008, Mother became pregnant with Daughter. She would later state that she had reconciled with Father and was living with him when Daughter was conceived. She told Boyfriend she was pregnant, but that the child was not his; he apparently accepted the news without question. During Mothers pregnancy, Father went to prenatal classes, drove Mother to the hospital when she was in labor, and was present and cut the umbilical cord when Daughter was born. Fathers name appeared on Daughters birth certificate as her father. Father also took several weeks of parental leave to help Mother with Daughters care after she was born. Father also said that he helped care for Daughter, changing her diapers, washing her laundry, and rocking her to sleep. When Mother ceased breast-feeding Daughter, Father helped prepare the babys bottles. Daughter slept with Mother and Father until she was four and a half years old.

Meanwhile, not long after Daughters birth, Mother began to suspect that Boyfriend was Daughters biological dad based on her features. Unbeknownst to Father, Mother and Boyfriend got a DNA testing kit at the drugstore, and the results confirmed Mothers suspicions. They did not tell Father, who still believed he was Daughters father. As years went by, Mother and Boyfriend had a tumultuous relationship, but Mother allowed Boyfriend and Daughter to see each other fairly regularly and to take trips with Boyfriend, his mother, and Mother. She and Boyfriend broke up and resumed their relationship numerous times. In July of 2014, Mother finally told Father about her relationship with Boyfriend. Father promptly filed for divorce.

On August 22, 2014, Boyfriend filed a petition to establish a parental relationship with Daughter, claiming that he was her biological father, seeking joint legal and physical custody and visitation, and asking that Daughters last name be changed to his. In response, Mother claimed that Daughter was not Boyfriends daughter, that her relationship with Boyfriend took place before she became pregnant, that Daughter was born during her marriage to Father and while they were living together. Father moved for joinder, contending that he was a necessary party in the action because he was conclusively presumed to be Daughters father under California Family Code Section 7540. Mother filed a declaration stating that she was cohabiting with Father when Daughter was conceived and asserting that the Family Code Section 7540 presumption trumped Family Code Section 7611(d) presumed fatherhood presumption.

At the hearing on October 21, 2014, Trial Court first determined that Father was a necessary party because of the Family Code Section 7540 presumption and granted Fathers motion for joinder. Trial Court then considered whether Boyfriend qualified as a presumed father under Family Code Section 7611(b) [received child into his home and held child out as his own]. Boyfriend testified that he saw Daughter almost every day between 2009, and 2010, that Daughter stayed overnight at his apartment once or twice a week, and that he made bottles for her by putting a scoop of formula and some warm tap water into the bottle. Boyfriend also stated that he began feeding Daughter chopped cooked vegetables when she was between six and nine months old. Boyfriend testified that he saw less of Daughter after she began going to daycare. When she started preschool in 2013, Boyfriend claimed that she used his last name, he paid for a years tuition, and he and Mother frequently picked her up. Daughters teacher confirmed that Boyfriend participated in school activities, attended parent-teacher conferences, and was called Pa or Daddy by Daughter. Boyfriend also said he had given birthday parties for Daughter at ages three, four and five, had taken her on trips with Mother, and celebrated numerous holidays with her. Boyfriend admitted that he did not have Daughter on his health insurance plan and did not know any of her doctors or dentist. However, he said he paid Mothers cell phone bill and gave Mother money every once in a while.

Mother testified that Boyfriend exaggerated the closeness of his relationship with Daughter, actually saw Daughter only once or twice a week for brief visits, and had only one overnight visit with Daughter when she was an infant. Mother refuted Boyfriends claims regarding feeding Daughter, saying she would not have permitted Daughter to drink formula from unsterilized bottles and did not start Daughter on solid food until she was between one and two years old, when she began eating pureed food (not chopped veggies). Mother admitted that Boyfriend paid for half of Daughters preschool tuition, went with her to pick up Daughter from preschool, and had Daughter over to his apartment to play after school. She also admitted going on trips with Boyfriend and Daughter, and taking Daughter over to Boyfriends on Daughters birthdays, Christmas, and Halloween for trick or treating. In addition, Mother asserted that Boyfriend hid Daughters toys when she was not there, so that relatives did not know of her existence.

Father testified that Daughter was home at night for all but a few nights, and could not have been with Boyfriend as often as he claimed without Fathers noticing. Father told Trial Court that he was very involved in Daughters life, put her on his health insurance, scheduled her dentist appointments, and saw to her basic needs. He said he was not extensively involved in Daughters preschool, which he believed that Mother paid for. Father admitted filing for divorce when he learned of Boyfriends relationship with Mother and Daughter, but asserted that he and Mother were working on their marriage and were not going forward with their divorce when Boyfriend filed his petition.

On March 19, 2015, Trial Court issued a statement of decision, denying Boyfriends requests for custody and visitation and concluding that Boyfriend had not qualified as a Family Code Section 7611 presumed father because he had not received Daughter into his home, as required by that statute, had regular visitation with Daughter, or assumed parent-type obligations and duties. Claiming, among other things, that Trial Court did not apply the proper standard in determining whether he had received Daughter into his home, Boyfriend appealed. But, now, California Court of Appeals has issued a ruling affirming Trial Courts decision.

The California Appellate Court has found that (1) the receiving into your home requirement in Family Code Section 7611(d) requires more than the childs physical presence in biological fathers home; (2) biological father must have demonstrated a parental relationship based on his having assumed parental responsibilities, showed his commitment to the child, and provided support for the child (Trial Court correctly used this standard); (3) Trial Court was not wrong by considering some of the same factors that it would have used to determine whether Boyfriend was Kelsey S. father (when an unwed father promptly demonstrates a full commitment to his parental responsibilities, he is entitled to the recognition of his real parental relationship absent a showing of unfitness); (4) Trial Court was also not wrong in declining to order visitation for Boyfriend as an interested non-parent or a parent (Boyfriend is only biological father, not natural parent); (5) Boyfriends constitutional claims fail because he did not discuss them at trial and did not have a protected liberty interest in establishing a parental relationship with Daughter; and (6) Boyfriends claim of bias has no merit (Trial Courts finding Mother credible did not constitute bias).