|toolbar powered by Conduit|
Oh the crazy things people do... Let's work through this in slow and orderly fashion.
Charlene and James get married.
Charlene and James break up.
Charlene files for divorce.
James starts dating Pamela (perhaps this started before the divorce was filed?).
James and Pamela try to kill Charlene
James and Pamela go to jail.
Pamela sues James for the $224,177.61 she loaned him for his bail and other expenses (like the hit man perhaps?)
James does not defend himself in the lawsuit and lets Pamela win (can you say “conspiracy?”)
The divorce action is still pending, and the family law judge allows Charlene to pull money out of certain of the community property accounts that she and James had.
Charlene has trouble getting her money because Pamela had put a writ of attachment on the account to try and collect the money that James owed her from their lawsuit.
Note: For those of you who don't know, a writ of attachment would have allowed Pamela to take all of the money in the account and apply it against the $224,177.61 that James owed her in their lawsuit. Do you see what has happened here? James is working with Pamela to get all of the community property money via collections on the $224 lawsuit. Charlene gets nothing, and then Pamela and James live large after they both get out of prison.
Now back to our story:
Charlene asked the judge to bar Pamela from recovering any money by the writ of attachment. Pamela responded by saying no problem judge, just make Charlene post a California Code of Civil Procedure Section 529 bond (another way of saying “make Charlene by an insurance policy”) for one and half times the value of the judgment (or $336,266.41). That way, if James does not have any money to pay her, Pamela will actually receive a bonus from Charlene for trying to kill her.
The family court judge determined that Pamela was attempting to use her civil judgment and ensuing writs and abstracts of judgment as an end run around the court's exclusive jurisdiction over community property. In addition, the fact that Pamela had not attempted to reach James's separate property, even while admitting that her purpose was to collect on his separate debt, indicated to the court that Pamela was "using the civil judgment as a means of harassing [Charlene]."
As a technical matter the case turns on whether CCP 529 is subordinate to the Family Code, or takes priority over it?
This is why we have courts, and this is why I think judges are smart people. The outcome of this case: Pamela loses! The Appellate Court holds that the family law statues prevail over the competing section from the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Family Law Rules . . . supersede contrary statutes because the rules were adopted pursuant to and are consistent with specific constitutional and statutory authorizations having this effect. [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of McKim (1972) 6 Cal.3d 673, 678, fn. 4, citing In re Marriage of Dover (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 675, 678, fn. 3 [the words "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" make Family Law Act rules " 'sui generis' and controlling over both statutory and decisional law"]; see also Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 357, 365 [aim of flexibility in family court procedure underlies former Civil Code section 4001]; In re Marriage of Lusk (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 228, 232-233 [following Fink].)
It is true that a civil statute is applicable in family court proceedings if it does not conflict with statutes and rules adopted under the Family Law Act. However, the Judicial Council was not completely silent regarding the rules for injunctive relief in family law proceedings. Rule 5.106 allows the court to grant such relief against any interested person "to protect the rights of either or both parties to the proceeding under the Family Code." Rule 5.118, which must be followed to obtain an injunction under rule 5.106, prescribes the elements of an application for such an order. Those elements do not include the posting of an undertaking; on the contrary, the court "may grant or deny the relief solely on the basis of the application and responses and any accompanying memorandum of points and authorities." We believe that both the broad jurisdiction conferred on the family court judge and the specific guidelines for issuing injunctive relief in dissolution proceedings defeat appellant's claim that a bond was required before Charlene could obtain such relief.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on California divorce.
#gausch #harding&associates #divorce #familylaw #californiafamilylaw
An unpublished opinion out of Orange County helps us to understand when a house acquired during the marriage is community property or separate property. Michael and Jane were married. During the marriage a house was purchased in Newport Beach.
The house was purchased in December 2000 for about $1.155 million. Title was only in Michael’s name. The grant deed read: “to Michael R. Carey, a married man as his sole and separate property.” At the time of the mortgage the parties had been married about five years. They would not separate until about six years later. The $1.155 million consisted of a down payment of $300,000 and a loan of $855,000. The $300,000 down payment was entirely husband Michael’s separate property. Only Michael’s name was on the loan. In fact, Jane told Michael “I’m not going to go on the loan if I’m not going to be on the title.”
Is the house Michael's separate property? No.
The salient issue is the character of the proceeds of the loan, i.e., the source of about 74 percent of the funds used to acquire property. (See In re Marriage of Rossin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 725, 731 [“‘In the absence of a controlling statutory presumption to the contrary, the character of property as community or separate will be determined by the source of assets used to produce it.’”].)
Even though only Michael was on the loan, he was married at the time. Because the loan was made during the marriage, the intent of the lender -- to look to either community income or assets, separate income or assets, or some combination of the two -- controls, regardless of whether the loan was to Michael only. (Gudelj v. Gudelj (1953) 41 Cal.2d 202, 210 [“There is a rebuttable presumption that property acquired on credit during marriage is community property. . . . In accordance with this general principle, the character of property acquired by a sale upon credit is determined according to the intent of the seller to rely upon the separate property of the purchaser or upon a community asset.”]; In re Marriage of Grinius (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1186 [“the character of credit acquisitions during marriage is ‘determined according to the intent of the lender to rely upon the separate property of the purchaser or upon a community asset’”].)
The Court also discusses the idea of undue influence, and opines that the quitclaim deed that Jane signed was signed by her under duress, and in therefore invalid.
[T]here was substantial evidence, in the form of the timing of the signing of the quitclaim deed, that the deed was signed under duress. (See In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 996 (Delaney) [construing Family Code section 721: “when any interspousal transaction advantages one spouse to the disadvantage of the other, the presumption arises that such transaction was the result of undue influence”].) Jane was presented with the quitclaim deed on the eve of closing. She had no practical choice to say no. Accordingly, whatever presumption that might arise from title was rebutted. (See id. at p. 997 [“The court concluded that in every such instance, the presumption based on the confidential fiduciary relationship between spouses must prevail over the presumption based on record title.”].)
Please click here to Download the Carey opinion
#divorce #familylaw #superlawyers #americanacademyofmatrimoniallawyers #alamedacountydivorce #contracostacountydivorce
"From early classic commentators to modern Jewish Law scholars, the character of marriage annulment in Jewish Law has been much debated. These debates revolve around the appropriate reading of Talmudic sources. Nevertheless, textual analysis of the main passages reveals support for almost all the competing opinions."
Written by Avishalom Westreich, Academic Center of Law and Business - Ramat Gan Law School, the article takes an in depth look at this challenging topic. Please click here to read the abstract.
#JewishLaw, #divorce, #marriageannulment, #halakhah, #Talmud, #Bourdieu, #Gadamer, #legalpluralism, #Agunot, #chainedwives, #family, #californiadivorcelaw
Columnists, and UC Davis law professors, Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein have written a great article on the latest happenings in the Prop 8/Same Sex Marriage litigation. The article summarizes the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court, and suggests that the California ruling paves the way for the case to head toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court decided as a matter of California law, that initiative proponents enjoy some special capacity to represent the state’s electorate when public officials decline to defend a law adopted through direct democracy. This resolved a hangover question from the Federal courts regarding whether or not the matter should even be heard in the Federal courts.
The authors explain:
In addition to answering this state-law question, the [California Supreme Court] court—in a somewhat unusual and ambitious move—also rendered its view that proponents should have standing to defend initiatives in federal court (where the Prop. 8 litigation is taking place) as well as state court. The California Justices acknowledged that standing in federal court is a matter not of state law, but rather federal law, and thus one for the federal courts ultimately to decide. But the California court offered its own reading of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, and indicated its belief that to the extent the U.S. Supreme Court has been skeptical of initiative-proponent standing in federal court in the past, that was only (or largely) because, in the states involved in prior cases, state law did not authorize proponents to represent the state, whereas in California proponents are authorized to do so.
This would suggest that the California Court wants a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, and is doing all it can to get that answer.
#johnharding #samesexmarriage #proposition8 #californiafamilylaw
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf has published an article in the Richmond Journal of Law and Public Interest dealing with breastfeeding as an issue in child custody cases. According to the abstract, the article explores the relationship between breastfeeding in custody proceedings and the supposedly discredited common law coverture and tender years doctrines. It argues that the case of custody disputes highlights the contradictory nature of family law through the relationship between parental autonomy, the privatization of dependency, and the judicially determined appropriateness of maternal relationships.
When it comes to family law most decisions are left to the states. The final arbiter of legal decisions in California is of course the California Supreme Court. That being the case Californians should know who their Supreme Court Justices are. One by one I am going to cut and paste the profiles for each justice, as they appear on the Court's official website. Today we feature Associate Justice Goodwin Liu.
Justice Goodwin Liu is an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. He was confirmed to office by a unanimous vote of the California Commission on Judicial Appointments on August 31, 2011, following his appointment by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on July 26, 2011. The Governor administered the oath of office to Justice Liu in a public ceremony in Sacramento, California on September 1, 2011.
Before joining the state’s highest court, Justice Liu was Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). His primary areas of expertise are constitutional law, education law and policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has published widely on these subjects in books, law reviews, and the general media.
The son of Taiwanese immigrants, Justice Liu grew up in Sacramento, where he attended public schools. He went to Stanford University and earned a bachelor’s degree in biology in 1991. He attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned a masters degree in philosophy and physiology. Upon returning to the United States, he went to Washington D.C. to help launch the AmeriCorps national service program and worked for two years as a senior program officer at the Corporation for National Service.
Justice Liu graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, becoming the first in his family to earn a law degree. He clerked for Judge David Tatel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then worked as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, where he developed and coordinated K-12 education policy. He went on to clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the October 2000 Term. In 2001, he joined the appellate litigation practice of O’Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C., and worked on an array of antitrust, white collar, insurance, product liability, and pro bono matters.
Justice Liu is a prolific and influential scholar. He has published articles on constitutional law and education policy in the California Law Review, Michigan Law Review, NYU Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and Yale Law Journal, among others. His 2006 article, “Education, Equality, and National Citizenship,” won the Steven S. Goldberg Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Education Law, conferred by the Education Law Association. Justice Liu is also a popular and acclaimed teacher. In 2009, he received UC Berkeley’s Distinguished Teaching Award, the university’s most prestigious honor for individual excellence in teaching. He earned tenure at Boalt Hall in 2008 and was promoted to Associate Dean. The Boalt Hall Class of 2009 selected him as the faculty commencement speaker.
Justice Liu serves on the Board of Trustees of Stanford University. He has previously served on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for Excellent Education, the American Constitution Society, the National Women’s Law Center, and the Public Welfare Foundation. In 2008, he was elected to the American Law Institute. He has also served as a faculty advisor to the California College Prep Academy, a public charter school co-founded by UC Berkeley and Aspire Public Schools.
Justice Liu is married to Ann O’Leary, Director of the Children and Families Program at the Center for the Next Generation. They have two children.
Please be sure to visit www.hardinglaw.com, the website for the law firm of Harding & Associates, for more information on California family law, and divorce in Hayward, Alameda, Walnut Creek, and Martinez, California.
I represented a very nice man in his divorce case. For our purposes we will call him "Norville." The friction was high as the couple slugged it out on many issues, including who would have primary custody of their two girls. Eventually we got all of the property division issues negotiated and settled. As part of the deal wife would keep the house, husband would get a buy-out payment, and he would go to the house on a scheduled Saturday morning to pick-up his clothes, his share of the furniture, etc.
At 10 a.m. on the appointed Saturday he drove up to the house to see a large banner hanging from the garage, and which read "Throw Norville Out of The House Party!". When he walked into the house he was greeted by his estranged spouse and six of her friends. The women were drinking mimosas, eating cake, and with his arrival, cat-calling and heckling Norville.
Being the better person, he maintained his decorum, got his stuff, and then left -- with his dignity obviously dented. Oh yes, I forget to mention, the wife decided to do all of this while the girls were with her at the house, during the party, on her custodial weekend.
Kizmit! We were in court on the case a few days later. My client filed an update with the court, including the details of the "party." Wife had her party. Dad had a hearing in front of the judge. Dad got custody of the kids.
The lesson to be learned? No one wins in a divorce. Don't make it worse by being ridiculous.
Family-law practitioners and legal experts say mothers and fathers in custody lawsuits are increasingly hurling accusations at each other about the nutrition and obesity of their children, largely in attempts to persuade judges that their kids are getting less-than-optimal care in the hands of ex- and soon-to-be-ex-spouses.
So says an article from the Wall Street Journal Online.
The evidence used to support the allegations varies. In some cases, it's a grossly overweight child. In others, it's evidence that soft drinks and potato chips make up a disproportionate part of a child's diet. In still others, it's that the other parent is too obese to perform basic child-rearing functions.
The bad diet of the child, and the lack of physical activity, those arguments I get. The part of the story that says parents are citing the obesity of their ex's as a disability compromising that plump parent's ability to care for the child. Hmmn. That's a challenging legal questions. If argued for the truly benevolent reason of trying to do what is best for the kids, then okay. But trying to deny the kids a parent because that parent ate a bit too much turkey at Thanksgiving? Nope I don't like it. And I don't think kids put their parents on a scale before they hand out their unconditional love.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on divorce in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
A case from Ventura County shows how the California family law courts continue to wrestle with grandparent visitation. More specifically, how should the court interfere with a sole surviving parent's rights as a parent, when fostering the natural desire of the grandparent whose child has died, to see the grandchild? For you legalphiles the opinion is important because, for the first time, a court determines that a grandparent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the court's denial of visitation is not in the child's best interest. The facts are not uncommon.
In December 2006 Rochelle Thatcher (mother) gave birth to grandchild. The father was grandmother's son. Mother and father were not married. Mother has physical custody of the grandchild. Grandmother and mother "do not get along." Among other disputes, they had differences of opinion concerning father's long-term use of drugs. Father died in 2010 of a drug overdose and left two suicide notes. Grandmother disputed the coroner's determination of death by suicide and told the coroner that mother may have been responsible for his death. Their hostility was open and clear.
Father had previously filed a "Petition to Establish Parental Relationship" and grandmother petitioned for joinder. Grandmother claimed that she should be joined in the action "to assert her visitation rights" pursuant to section 3102. Mother opposed joinder and grandparent visitation. The trial court granted the petition for joinder.
In June 2010 the trial court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing on visitation. Thereafter, it issued a written ruling which could serve as a "text book example" of how a trial court should proceed. (See e.g. People v. Rosalez (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 789, 792.) The trial court denied grandmother's request for visitation. The court stated that its decision was based on "[d]eclarations of the parties and witnesses" and on testimony at the hearing. It expressed "great concern over [grandmother's] veracity." It also noted that, although grandmother had shown that she had a relationship with grandchild, she had failed to show "a deep and abiding relationship." The trial court found that "Grandmother's relationship with [grandchild] was rather limited to interaction with [grandchild] during [grandchild's] supervised visits with Father, largely due to the fact that Grandmother was the court-appointed supervisor for Father's visits with [grandchild]."
The trial court summarized the relevant law as follows: "The case law applicable to Section 3102 requires the Court to apply a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of her child. This presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that denial of the grandparent visitation would be detrimental to the child." The court concluded: "[N]o evidence was presented to the Court to suggest that Mother is an unfit parent. As such, the Court . . . finds that Grandmother has not provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that Mother is acting in the best interest of [grandchild] in denying visitation to Grandmother at this time or that denial of visitation with Grandmother would be detrimental to [grandchild]." The court went on to find that, regardless of whether the "detrimental" requirement was satisfied, the granting of visitation to grandmother would not be in grandchild's best interest: "Even if the Court were to find that Grandmother had overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence that denial of the visitation by Grandmother was detrimental to [grandchild], the Court hereby finds that it would not be in [grandchild's] best interest to interject court-ordered visitation with Grandmother, particularly in light of the longstanding animosity between Mother and Grandmother."
As we indicated in In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095) the trial court's comment on grandmother's veracity is tantamount to an "adverse factual finding." This is a poor platform upon which to predicate a successful appeal. (Id., at p. 1099.)
In affirming the trial court, the appellate presents its on succinct statement on the law of grandparent visitation:
"Grandparents' rights to court-ordered visitation with their grandchildren are purely statutory. [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 219.) The applicable statute here, section 3102, provides in relevant part: "a) If either parent of an unemancipated minor child is deceased, the . . . grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable visitation with the child during the child's minority upon a finding that the visitation would be in the best interest of the minor child."
Grandmother contends that the trial court erred in applying the clear and convincing burden. We disagree with her and agree with the trial court's legal conclusion. We hold as follows: To overcome the presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of the grandchild, a grandparent has the burden of proof and must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that denial of visitation is not in the best interest of the grandchild, i.e., denial of visitation would be detrimental to the grandchild. The fair import of the word "detriment" is damage, harm, or loss. (See American Heritage Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) P. 388, col. 2.) If grandparent visitation is in the grandchild's "best interest," it is not "detrimental." If grandparent visitation is not in the grandchild's "best interest," it is "detrimental." (In re Randlyanne G. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1169; superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1294-1295.) . . .
There is no question that a grandparent has an important interest in visiting with a grandchild. But the higher degree of the burden of proof that we adopt simply demonstrates that there is a preference in favor of the presumably correct choice of a fit sole surviving parent. Such a choice is "first."
Please click here to read the original Rich v Thatcher opinion.
As part of its continuing legal education slate the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers will be presenting its Evidence Bootcamp Webinar on December 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM Eastern; 11:00 AM Central; 10:00 AM Mountain; 9:00 AM Pacific. This 90 minute program will provide great training for associates, and will also be the perfect refresher course for seasoned professionals.
The panel includes Anita Ventrelli, Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP, Chicago, Illinois and John F. Nichols, Sr., Nichols Law, Houston, Texas. The program moderator is John Harding, Harding & Associates, Pleasanton, California.
More information, including registration, CLICK HERE.
Please visit hardinglaw.com for more information of Harding & Associates Family Law
"Working moms have lower rates of depression than their stay-at-home counterparts." So says a study by the American Sociological Association. However, "working mothers who expressed a supermom attitude that work and home lives can be blended with relative ease showed higher levels of depression symptoms than working moms who expected that they would have to forego some aspects of their career or parenting to achieve a work-life balance" In other words, you can do it jus't don't expect to do it all. Give yourself a break, and don't expect to be perfect.
As young adults, the women who participated in the study answered questions about work-life balance. They were asked to rank how much they agreed with statements such as “A woman who fulfills her family responsibilities doesn’t have time for a job outside the home,” “Working wives lead to more juvenile delinquency” and “A woman is happiest if she can stay at home with her children.”
Then, when the women were 40, the same women had their levels of depression measured.
The Study determined that the stay-at-home moms had more depression symptoms than the working moms in the study. “Employment is ultimately beneficial for women’s health, even when differences in marital satisfaction and working full or part time are ruled out.
This is useful information for women going through divorce. Frequently these women are faced with having to make a decision between the stay-at-home vocation they followed during the marriage, versus the need to return to work. Apparently from the first person, mom centered perspective, returning to work would not appear to be a bad thing. The next step is to find some research to see how the idea of mom returning to work affects the children?
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on divorce and family law in California, and in particular Alameda County and Contra Costa County.
Here are some great facts from a case out of Sacramento County. This is for real!
Patricia married Richard in 1973. Patricia started dating Henry in 1987. Patricia started dating Jeffrey in 1988. At the time he was dating Patricia, Jeffrey was married to Debra. Notice I have yet to mention any divorces or break-ups.
Particia broke up with Richard in mid 1988. She continued to date Jeffrey and Henry. In May of 1988 Patricia got a restraining order against Henry. She served the retraining order on Henry, and then she and Henry met in Reno to talk about it. After a few shots of tequila Patricia and Henry went to a Reno wedding chapel and got married. She spent the night with him in Reno, and then returned to her boyfriend Jeffrey in Sacramento.
Patricia divorces Richard in December, 1988. Jeffrey divorces Debra in April, 1991. Patricia and Jeffrey get married in June, 1991. Notice there is nothing about Patricia divorcing Henry.
In 2008 Patricia and Jeffrey break-up. Patricia files for divorce. Jeffrey files to have their marriage annulled. A divorce ends a valid marrige. An anullment declares the marriage void. It is as if the marriage never occcured. Jeffrey argued that his marriage to Patricia was void because she was still married to Henry when she married Jeffrey. According to Jeffrey that is bigamy, and that equals void marriage for Patricia and Jeffrey. Annulment also equals no spousal support and no community property division.
Proving that she has more luck than a leprechaun on St. Patty's Day, Patricia wins. The court decides that because she was still married to Richard when she married Henry in 1988, her marriage to Henry was void from its inception. By the time she married Jeffrey Patricia had gotten a divorce from Richard. She did not need to get a divorce from Henry because that marriage was never valid. She was a single women -- as that term is defined legally -- when she married Jeffrey, and it was a valid marriage.
What does it all mean? It means that Patricia can now go back to court and get spousal support and property from Jeffrey.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on California divorce, and family law and divorce in Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Concord, Lafaeyette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek.
Kim Kardashian made millions off of her television wedding. Now she is going to make millions off of her television divorce. Good for her. She found a niche and filled it. Who is to blame for her exploitative success? Also, who is to blame Kris Humphries for his complicity in the whole ruse? He is now more famous than he ever would have been from just paying basketball. Who is to blame? The answer is you, me, and everyone else. If knuckleheads like us didn't tune in to her television show, and buy all the magazines and tabloids that run stories on her there would be no Kardashian brand.
Now to the deeper questions. Are we all so desperate for romance that we are willing to watch this actress make a mockery of love by bouncing from one front-page-worthy paramour to another? And does not the sympathy that we have for her horrible state of contrived Hollywood despair in fact encourage her success, and invite others to do the same?
Marriage is serious business, and by this I don't mean the financial success that it brings to celebrities. It is a serious ceremony bred into our being. Kardashian and Humphries aside, most people marry for love. When the marriage fails the consequences are severe. Broken hearts, shattered dreams, suffering children. As a divorce lawyer I see the real pain from divorce every day. The decision to marry should not be taken lightly, nor should the decision to divorce. Unfortunately when both are glamorised beyond reason society's thinking gets skewed. How many young people will learn from Kardashin that it is acceptable and rewarding to pull out of a marriage after a few weeks? How many young people will learn that it is okay to marry for fame, and then back out of the relationship for even more fame?
There is no doubt that the Kim Kardashian/Kris Humphries marriage and divorce have both been a great success. Is that really the kind of success we want to encourage?
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information and divorce and family law.
To all my loyal readers who love the celebrity divorce news here is some shocking info for you: Made for TV celebrity Kim Kardashian has filed for divorce from her made for TV husband, NBA sub Kris Humphries. You may recall that less than three months ago they had their storybook made for TV wedding. Go to Google and type in Kim Kardashian for more information than you could ever really want on this sad, made for TV mockery.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on California, Alameda County, and Contra Costa County divorce information.
A study has been completed by University of Minnesota researcher Bill Doherty, in collaboration with Hennepin County (Minnesota) District Court Judge Bruce Peterson, looking at the level of interest in reconciliation among couples who are involved in the divorce process and who have children.
The study, "Interest in Marital Reconciliation Among Divorcing Parents," was published recently in Family Court Review, the leading academic journal for professionals who work in family courts. This is the first time data has been gathered on divorcing parents' interest in reconciliation. In the study, nearly 2,500 divorcing parents were surveyed about reconciliation after taking a required parenting class.
About one of four individual parents indicated some belief that their marriage could still be saved with hard work, and about one in nine couples believed both partners did, says Doherty, family social science professor in the university's College of Education and Human Development.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on Alameda County divorce and Contra Costa County divorce.
Child custody battles still predominate in divorce cases. Of course, the parents can go to court and slug it out -- but there should be a better way, don't you think? I make my lving off of representing people in conflict. Still, I am also interested in methods for reducing the conflict. One of the resources that I have come across (and mentioned in the past) is OurFamilyWizard.com.
Some may consider this an incredibly commercial post. So be it. Ourfamilywizard.com has a plethora of resources, some free, some costing money. For parents dealing with high conflict custody cases, it is worth your time to take a look. Free resources include article on co-parenting. Paid services include co-pareting calendars and messaging services. Take a peek. You may find something you like -- and that will benefit your children.
Please visit hardinglaw.com for more information on California family law.
Pre-nuptial agreements are complicated, confusing, and confounding legal documents. There are plenty of arguments against drafting a pre-nup: they are unromantic, they are expensive, they are too complicated, "we are never going to get divorced." All of these arguments have some merit. However, that merit isn't worth a hill of beans if your marriage (like 50% of all of them) ends up in divorce. Pre-nups have come to be for very legitimate reasons.
At The Huffington Post Lee Block has written a great article that cuts through the complicated legal jargon surrounding pre-nups, and endeavors to bring a bit of commonsense to the reality of marriage. Please click here for her original article entitled Divorce And The Marriage Contract.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on California family law.
Because of the budget crisis in California the Alameda County Superior Court has elected to close the family law department at the Pleasanton Courthouse. All further court hearings in matter previously venued in Pleasanton will be conducted in Department 503 at the Hayward Hall of Justice located 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, California.
All litigants living in Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Sunol will now file their family law cases at the Hayward Hall of Justice.
The Hayward Hall of Justice now becomes one of only two Alameda County courthouses hearing family law cases (the other is in Alameda). Many other cases (including all general civil cases from the Pleasanton and Fremont courthouses) have been transferred to the Hayward Hall of Justice. Unfortunately there is no additional money for the extra security required, so the building will continue to operate with just one metal detector. The line to get through security can stretch around the block. It is suggested that you get in line no later than 8:30 a.m. to have any hope of being in the actual courtroom by 9:00 a.m. If you want to play it safe, getting in line by 8 or 8:15 would be even better.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com for more information on California family law.
Mark Heneghan has release a paper on the effect of child relocation. As taken frm the abstract:
Relocation cases have become a very significant aspect of family law. This article examines the difficulties in deciding (and predicting the outcomes of) national and international relocation cases. The article questions the usefulness of using checklists of non-prioritised, non-exhaustive factors to decide relocation cases based on the uncertainty such general checklists create for litigants and their children. This inevitably leads to increased litigation and appeals until the litigant finds a judge who will see the facts the litigant’s way.
The article seeks to find a more principled way to decide relocation cases that would enable litigants to be given a realistic assessment of their likelihood of success at the outset. The article examines social science research for potential answers, but finds that there is no clear social science basis to support a policy either for or against relocation. The article discusses different theoretical frameworks, and argues that power between parents in relation to relocation should be allocated on the basis of actual responsibility for children. The article ultimately concludes by suggesting a prioritised ‘discipline’ for the values that need to be considered in relocation disputes. This discipline attempts to provide a visible framework for litigants, lawyers and judges to follow, which is designed to enhance consistency and predictability in decision making, and to give real meaning to the welfare principle.
Please visit Hardinglaw.com to learn more about California family law.