Bay Area Family Law Center Lawyer Blog

California Court Discusses Demonstrating Judicial Bias in a Family Law Case

Published on: December 3, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

Domestic violence is a serious problem affecting many residents of California. Thus, the law allows victims of domestic violence to seek restraining orders preventing them from suffering further harm. Prior to granting an order, the court will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence of violent acts against a person so as to warrant a restraining order. Judges are required to issue rulings based on the evidence alone and cannot impart their opinions on the matter. As such, if a judge demonstrates bias during a domestic violence hearing, it may constitute grounds for a reversal. The evidence needed to demonstrate bias was the subject of a recent California ruling in which both parties accused each other of domestic violence. If you are the victim of abuse by a romantic partner or family member, it is prudent to meet with a skilled California domestic violence attorney regarding your rights.

The Hearing and Subsequent Ruling

It is reported that in the spring of 2019, the wife filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against the husband. A month later, the husband filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against the wife. The court issued temporary orders retraining both parties and scheduled a hearing for cause. During the hearing, the wife testified in detail regarding numerous acts of abuse over the course of two years. The judge issued an order against the husband but declined to issue an order against the wife. The husband appealed, arguing that the judge demonstrated bias.

Demonstrating Bias in a Family Law Case

Under the California Domestic Violence Prevention Act, a court may issue an order restraining any person to prevent domestic violence from recurring and ensuring a separation between the parties involved if the party seeking the order presents reasonable proof of past acts of abuse. Abuse is defined as an act that causes a person to have a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm. It also includes conduct that is enjoined by other statutes such as sexual assault, battery, and molestation.

Court Explains Timesharing and Child Support Under California Law

Published on: November 4, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

Many times when the parents of a child end their relationship, they will turn to the courts to decide issues of custody and child support. There are numerous factors that a court should consider in determining an appropriate custody arrangement and support obligation. For example, a court will typically evaluate how much time each parent spends with a child in calculating child support obligations. Recently, a California court discussed a court’s discretion, or lack thereof, in determining an appropriate support obligation, in a case in which timesharing that did not exist was accredited to the father. If you share custody of a child and you or your co-parent wish to seek child support, you should speak to a trusted California child support attorney to discuss your options.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father were parents of a minor child. The mother sought child support, after which the court entered an order based on guidelines that required the court to determine the approximate amount of time the higher-earning parent spent with the child and use that number to calculate an appropriate support obligation. The trial court had attributed a twenty-nine percent timeshare to the father, even though for several years, he had no visitation with the child.

Reportedly, the mother appealed the order as it pertained to the periods in which the father did not spend time with the child, which was approximately five years. The court found in favor of the mother and ruled that the order must be recalculated based on the father’s actual timeshare of the child during the disputed period.

California Court Issues Ruling Regarding Bitcoin Transactions in Divorce Cases

Published on: October 6, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

Recent changes in technology and currency have not only altered the global economy, but they have also modified settlements and property division in divorce cases. This was demonstrated in a recent California case in which the court found that the husband violated the fiduciary duty he owed his wife as well as her interest in the community estate by failing to disclose information regarding his cryptocurrency investments. If you are in the process of determining whether to end your marriage, it is important to understand how the investments you and your spouse own may be evaluated, and you should consult a knowledgeable California divorce attorney regarding your rights.

Facts of the case

It is reported that in January 2013, the wife filed a petition for divorce and, along with the petition, served her husband with a restraining order that prohibited him from transferring, concealing, or disposing of any property, whether community or separate. In April 2013, the husband made three bitcoin-related transactions. Ultimately, most of his $45,000 were tied up in a bankruptcy action. He eventually recovered a small amount, and in his financial disclosures in February 2014, disclosed ownership of 1,062 bitcoins.

Allegedly, the court found the bitcoins to be community property and divided them equally between the spouses. Only after the wife sought to collect her half of the bitcoins was it disclosed that the remaining coins were tied up in bankruptcy. The value of the bitcoins had increased greatly at that time, and the original investment of $45,000 was now worth $8 million. The wife filed a motion to have half of the value of the bitcoins transferred to her and to grant her attorneys’ fees. The court granted the motion, finding that the husband breached the fiduciary duty he owed his wife. The husband then appealed.

California Court Discusses Allegations of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases

Published on: September 8, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

In any family law dispute involving custody, the court’s primary concern is what is in the child’s best interest. While normally it is beneficial for a child to have ongoing contact with both parents, in cases involving domestic violence, the court may decline to grant a parent custody or visitation rights, unless the evidence demonstrates it should rule otherwise. In a recent California case, the court discussed what evidence is needed to demonstrate that a party has perpetrated domestic violence and that awarding custody to that party would be detrimental to a child. If you are immersed in a disagreement over custody that involves allegations of domestic violence, it is prudent to speak to a dedicated California child custody attorney to discuss what measures you may be able to take to safeguard the interests of you and your child.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the mother met the father when she attended his karate class. She was thirteen at the time, and he was thirty-four. When the mother turned eighteen, they married and shortly thereafter had a daughter. The mother filed for divorce when the child was eighteen months old. The mother sought sole legal and physical custody of the daughter with limited visitation rights awarded to the father, alleging that the father had sexually molested her when she was a minor and routinely engaged in acts of domestic violence against the mother, in the form of stalking and verbal assault.

Allegedly, the court found that there was insufficient evidence that the father perpetrated acts of domestic violence and awarded the father joint custody, ordering a schedule that would allow him to have physical custody approximately thirty percent of the time. The mother appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in finding that the father should be granted custody rights.

California Court Discusses Application of the Hague Convention in Custody Cases

Published on: August 6, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

Given the global economy and the ease of establishing a life outside of the United States, it is not uncommon for a family to reside in another country for an extended duration. When a couple that regularly spends time in other countries decides to divorce, however, their international travel habits may present challenges in terms of determining custody. The hurdles of protecting custody rights when the parties have lived abroad were demonstrated in a recent California case in which the parties lived overseas prior to seeking a divorce. If your child’s co-parent is attempting to keep your child in another country, it is essential to retain a diligent California child custody attorney to help you fight to protect your parental rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the mother and father were married in Italy in 2006 and lived there until 2008 when they moved to California. They had two children in 2009 and 2010 while living in California. In 2016, they moved back to Italy as a family, but the mother and the father became United States citizens prior to moving. They eventually gave up all of their assets and property in California and established a life in Italy. The children attended school in Italy and routinely received medical treatment there as well.

Allegedly, in 2018, the mother and the father began experiencing marital problems, and the mother advised that she wished to move back to California with the children. The parties never agreed regarding where the children would reside, however. The mother moved back to California, and in 2019 the father filed for divorce in Italy. The mother then traveled to Italy and returned to California with the children. At that time, the children had lived in Italy for two years and nine months. The mother subsequently filed a divorce action in California in which she sought, in part, sole legal and physical custody of the children. The father then filed a petition for the return of the children under the Hague convention.

What Happens in California When a Parent Kidnaps or Withholds a Child From the Other Parent?

Published on: July 7, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

In many instances, a parent will not agree with a court’s order regarding the custody of a child. While there are appropriate means for asking a court to modify or reconsider a custody order, some parents, unfortunately, take matters into their own hands and simply disregard a court-ordered custody agreement, and withhold a child from the other parent. Fortunately, however, the law provides avenues for parents who are seeking to remedy the unjust denial of access to their children. If you need assistance with a child custody matter, it is critical to engage a trusted California child custody attorney to assist you in protecting your rights.

Establishing Child Custody

Under California law, both parents are presumed to have a right to custody and visitation. Thus, if no existing order establishes custody of a child, either parent can seek court intervention to establish custody. A written order is essential as it helps parents protect their rights in the event a co-parent attempts to withhold a child. A court asked to decide a custody matter will set forth an order that is in the child’s best interest after considering factors such as the health of the child and each parent, the child’s needs, the parents’ resources, and any other relevant factors. It is important that the order contains clear provisions for the division of custody, including dates and times for exchanges and methods for resolving any disputes.

California Court Discusses Modifications of Juvenile Custody Orders

Published on: June 19, 2020 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

It is not uncommon for a parent who has lost custody of a child to the State to seek a modification of a juvenile order once the parent has addressed the State’s concerns. Thus, the California courts allow for modifications of juvenile orders in certain circumstances. Specifically, a parent that wishes to modify an existing juvenile order must produce evidence sufficient to show that there has been a material change in circumstances. What constitutes a material change was discussed in a recent California case in which a mother appealed the denial of her petition for modification. If you intend to seek a modification of an existing juvenile custody order, it is prudent to contact a knowledgeable California child custody attorney to discuss your case.

Historical Background of the Case

It is reported that DCFS removed the child from the care of the mother and father in 2017, due to a history of violent altercations between the parents, the father’s conviction for battery, and the mother’s untreated mental health issues. The mother was granted visitation at DCFS’s offices, domestic violation training, and reunification services. She was then granted overnight visitation with the child, which she then lost due to her failure to move to a safer home as required, and her ongoing contact with the father.

Allegedly, the State subsequently terminated reunification services as well, due to the mother’s failure to refrain from contacting the father. The mother continued her visits with the child, which were positive, and the child was diagnosed with autism. Ultimately, the mother filed a petition for modification of the order terminating reunification services and requested to have the child placed with her, arguing she met all of the court’s requirements and that it would be in the child’s best interest to be with her. The court denied her petition, after which the mother appealed.

How California Courts Divide Businesses In A Divorce

Published on: December 12, 2019 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

California business owners face a unique set of challenges when they divorce. By law, a divorcing business owner may be required to hand over up to 50% of their interest in a business to their ex. Several factors determine the division of a business during divorce, even in a community property state like California. So to understand who gets what when it comes to business and divorce, here’s what you need to consider.

Is The Business Community or Separate Property?

In simple terms, the assets and property acquired during marriage are community property. While assets and property acquired before or after the marriage are separate property. So, when a spouse or couple acquires or starts a business during the marriage with community resources, courts will consider it to be community property and divide the asset equally between both ex-spouses.

California Court States What is Needed to Assess a Request to Change Support

Published on: December 6, 2019 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

In many cases in which a couple gets divorced if there is a disparity in income between the spouses, the court will grant spousal support to the lesser earning spouse. The intention of spousal support is to allow the spouse with a lower income to enjoy the same lifestyle he or she enjoyed during the marriage. Most spousal support obligations are not permanent, however, but can be modified upon a showing of a significant change in circumstances. Recently, a California appellate court analyzed what constitutes a sufficient showing to warrant a modification in a case in which the husband appealed the trial court’s denial of his request to terminate spousal support. If you wish to modify a spousal support obligation, it is in your best interest to consult a trusted California spousal support attorney regarding your burden of proof.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, the husband and the wife were married for over twenty years. They filed a stipulated agreement to dissolve their marriage in 2014, which included an obligation for the husband to pay spousal support to the wife in the amount of $2,500 each month. The support obligation was to be reviewed in two years. In 2017, the husband filed a request for an order terminating the support obligation due to the wife’s new job and increased monthly income. Additionally, the husband engaged an expert who stated that the wife would require $3,300 per month to maintain the marital standard of living.

It is alleged that the wife opposed the husband’s request, arguing there were numerous factors the court must consider prior to ruling on the request, and requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter. A settlement conference was unproductive, and the matter was scheduled for a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, the wife filed a brief arguing that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances and that she could not maintain her standard of living on her income alone. The court ruled in favor of the wife based solely on the wife’s brief. The husband then appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Who Gets What When Accidents Occur During A Divorce?

Published on: December 4, 2019 | by Bay Area Family Law Center

Accidents can happen at any time—house fires, car accidents, worker’s compensation claims, and injuries to life and limb, to name a few. A civil lawsuit or claim may continue for years after the injury. Sometimes civil claims arise while a couple is in the middle of a divorce. Which raises the question: How do California courts handle personal injury claims and insurance proceeds during a divorce?

If an ex-spouse has to file an insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit because of the mishap, it’s not easy to determine which spouse is entitled to a payout or where to turn to figure it out. If you have questions about how the court will divide your accident proceeds, here’s what you need to know about accidents, insurance, and divorce. For purposes of this article, an “Injured Spouse” and a “Personal Injury Award” includes injuries to property, such as houses and vehicles, as well as injuries to life and limb.

Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders Ensure that Upon Service of a Divorce Case, Neither Spouse Is Permitted to Remove or Cancel Their Spouse’s Insurance Policies.