San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Famous R & B artist Usher is currently litigating a hotly contested custody case with his former wife Tameka. Tameka and Usher were married for two short years before Usher filed for divorce in 2009. Currently the couple shares joint custody of their two young sons. On Tuesday May 1, the pair attended a court hearing in Georgia where the judge ordered them to work out some type of agreement "or else." The judge instructed them to attempt to reach a temporary child custody and visitation arrangement in a private mediation setting. If they were unable to reach an agreement, the judge would impose a temporary order upon Usher and Tameka. In this case, the two would have no control over the outcome.

It is common in the San Diego family court system for a judge to order parties to attempt reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiating and mediating disputes, especially those regarding child custody, result in less turmoil in an already hostile situation. This approach tends to promote cooperation and a healthy co-parenting relationship between the parties that is in the best interest of the child. However, when domestic violence is involved in a case, party negotiations will be ineffective and unsuccessful.

Harsh mudslinging has been a common tactic throughout the Raymond custody dispute. Tameka has accused Usher of being behind in child support payments in the amount of at least $34,000. Tameka has also alleged that Usher is an unfit father because he has a habit of doing drugs, specifically prescription pills, in front of their children. As a result of this allegation, she has requested Usher be ordered to undergo drug testing. Usher has denied any drug use and in addition is requesting more time with his children. We have recently blogged about the divorce and the effects on children. In order to promote stability in the children's lives, many resources are available to divorcing couples or adverse parties in custody disputes.

Last year, Tameka requested that the court reduce Usher's custody and visitation rights to their two sons. The children are still very young, the oldest, Usher V is four years old and the youngest, Naviyd, is just three years old. In order to be successful in a child custody and visitation modification motion, the requesting party must show the court that a significant change of circumstance has occurred since the previous court order. One popular ground for this request is that the other parent has become unfit in such a way as to render him or her an ineffective or inappropriate parent. As Tameka has alleged here, drug abuse is a common allegation that, if proved, may result in a change of custody.

Tameka is now requesting a modification in the current child support order. She alleges a "substantial change" in Usher's income since their divorce proceeding. First, in order to collect the unpaid child support, Tameka must be able to prove that Usher in fact had an obligation to pay that support and did not pay it. In San Diego, the Department of Child Support Services is an excellent resource for parents who wish to enforce a current order to collect unpaid support. However, custody and visitation are completely separate from child support orders. If Usher in fact is behind on support, Tameka must still allow him his court-ordered time with the children.

Please contact us if you have questions regarding custody and visitation and/or divorce. Nancy J. Bickford is the only attorney in San Diego County representing clients in divorces, who is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) and who is actively licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

Under California family law statutes, paternity can be established in a number of ways depending on the relationship between the father and mother. Through the combination of statute-mandated presumptions and DNA testing, determinations regarding paternity made by the court can have a significant impact on child custody and child support.

An unmarried father must sign a paternity declaration in order for his name to appear on a child's birth certificate. The paternity declaration is significant because it creates both support obligations and parental rights for the father. In San Diego, there is a rebuttable presumption that a man who accepts a child into his home and openly holds that child out to be his own is the child's biological father. This presumption is rebuttable through the use of blood tests to determine paternity. If no blood tests are conducted and introduced into paternity proceedings, the man is presumed to be the child's father.

A child conceived during a martial relationship in which the wife is cohabitating with the husband is presumed to be a child of the marriage. In other words, the mother's husband is presumptively the child's father. If the husband is sterile or impotent, the marital presumption will not apply. This presumption may be overcome through the use of blood or DNA testing to determine paternity. The presumed father must petition for court-ordered blood testing within two years of the child's birth. Therefore, unless a motion is filed within the two-year statute of limitations and blood testing establishes the husband is not the father, the mother's husband is conclusively presumed to be the father. The presumption will still apply even if another man is proven to be the biological father of the child.

The marital and non-marital paternity presumptions can have harsh consequences regarding a father's parental rights. Considering that the husband of a child's mother is presumed to be the child's father and that in non-marital relationships a man must live with and hold a child out to be his own in order to be presumed the father, a child conceived out of an affair can create a devastating situation for the biological father. In a California family law case, Dawn D. v. Jerry K. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, this scenario became a reality. In this case, Dawn D. intended to divorce her husband when she began living with another man named Jerry K. Shortly after moving in with Jerry K. Dawn D. became pregnant. Just three months into her pregnancy, Dawn D. returned to her husband and rekindled their marriage. As a result of this case, the biological father, Jerry K. was unable to assert his parental rights to his child.

The paternity presumptions can have surprising consequences in terms of child support obligations as well. A presumed father is obligated to pay child support where support is ordered. If a presumed father makes child support payments for the child's minority and later learns he is not the biological father, he has no recourse for the 18 years of child support payments made. Further, if a presumed father conclusively proves through DNA testing that he is not the biological father of a child BUT has missed the two-year statute of limitations, he will be on the hook for child support payments for the remainder of the child's minority.

California family law cases operate under the best interest of the child standard. Most family court rulings attempt to further that interest as the paramount concern. Many argue that paternity presumptions are outdated, unnecessary and detrimental to the best interest of the child. Because science has advanced and paternity can be determined so accurately and efficiently, these advocates contend that DNA testing should be conducted in each paternity case in order to ensure the child's biological father is shouldered with the responsibilities and is able to enjoy his parental rights.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding custody and/or paternity. San Diego Family Law Attorney Nancy J. Bickford is the only board-certified divorce lawyer representing clients in San Diego who also holds an MBA and a CPA. Don't settle for less when determining your rights. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County or San Diego.

We have blogged several times about the potential problems that Facebook and other social media sites can have on a divorce. The same potential for problems also applies to the text messages you send. Although it is sometimes difficult to get text messages into evidence (meaning properly in front of a judge), once the text message is in evidence, it could change the outcome of your case!

Unlike Facebook and other social media posts, text messages cannot be deleted or recalled. Any text that you send to your spouse, or even to a third party, can end up being used against you in a divorce. With phones now having up to 64 gigabytes of storage, or more, texts from many years ago could end up being presented as evidence to the judge in your divorce case.

• If you threaten to harm your spouse in a text, that may be the basis for a restraining order, or even criminal prosecution.

• If you call your spouse names in texts, the judge could end up with an unfavorable opinion of you.

• If you say one thing in your declaration (such as, "I do not use drugs") and text something contrary to your spouse or a third party (such as, "I can't believe how stoned I was at the party"), you will ruin your credibility with the judge.

In a recent story on NPR, Ken Altshuler, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, provided the following tips for keeping your texts out of court, upon which I elaborate:

• Do not text your spouse anything that you would not want a judge to see. This also applies to Facebook and other social media posts, messages or comments, emails, and even voice mail messages. It is always best to assume that any text, anything you write or any voice message you leave for your spouse will end up in front of your judge. Some examples of what not to post, blog or text about can be found here.

• If your spouse or former spouse sends you an inappropriate text, do not respond in kind because a judge will see that. The judge usually does not care who started an inappropriate exchange because the exchange is usually just a small part of the bigger picture. In one of my cases after reviewing hateful emails back and forth between the parties, the judge (slightly misquoting Mercutio's famous line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Julie), said "A pox on both your houses." When the other party blurted out, "She started it!" the judge replied, "Sir, two wrongs do not make a right - and your emails back to here were totally inappropriate, no matter who started it."

• Do not send messages that set your spouse up for an inappropriate or angry response. On the other hand, some Judges will look into who started it. You do not want your judge to find that you were the party that started it, or someone who is baiting the other side. This could ruin your credibility with the judge for the rest of your case.

• If you are worked up and want to send your spouse a message, take time to calm down before putting anything in writing. Again, if it is in writing, you must assume that your judge will eventually read it. If you are unsure about a written response to your spouse, send it to your attorney for review before sending it to your spouse.

Always remember, do not text anything to anyone that you would want the family law judge in your case to see or read.

Continue reading "Texting Can have a BIG Impact on your Divorce Case" »

How do I collect unpaid or back child support in San Diego?

Times are tough already between the economy and normal monthly expenses stacking up. The last thing a custodial parent needs is to worry about obtaining and collecting child support. Attorneys in the San Diego area can help you obtain and collect unpaid or back child support that is owed to you.

Why do I need a Child Support Order?

If you are the primary custodial parent, you have a right to child support to help with your monthly expenses. The non-custodial parent is just as responsible for providing for the child(ren) as you are. Having an oral agreement for child support with the non-custodial parent is not good enough. You need to obtain an order from the court for the child support agreement to be enforceable. Without a court order the non-custodial parent has no legal obligation to pay child support to you even if you have agreed to terms for child support payments. If the co-parent stops paying the amount of child support you informally agreed to, then you will have little recourse if he or she stops making payments and you will not be able to collect arrears for the months they did not pay or only partially paid.

How do I file for child support?

Obtaining a court order is easier than it sounds and the state's enforcement tools (discussed below) often provide incentive for the non-custodial parent to pay child support.

If you were not married to the child's parent at the time the child was conceived, you will have to first file a Petition to Establish a Parental Relationship ("Petition") to establish paternity. You will need to provide your attorney, and the court, whatever information you have about the other parent's whereabouts and your relationship with that person. The Petition also allows the court to make child support orders once paternity is established.

If you were married when the child was born, paternity is presumed unless the other parent challenges paternity. However, you will have to file an Order to Show Cause to obtain child support. The court will determine a guideline amount based on both parent's income, timeshare with the children, and various other factors.

Continue reading "How do I collect unpaid or back child support in San Diego?" »

As a San Diego Divorce Attorney, when a client remarries, he or she often wonders if their new spouse's income will impact child support and spousal support. Recently, a client in the midst of a divorce in which status was previously granted (meaning the parties were no longer married) but the issues of spousal support and attorney fees were not yet resolved, who was about to remarry, asked about the impact of new spouse income on the issue of spousal and child support.

Previously, I blogged about the impact of new mate income on child support and spousal support orders. To summarize:

1) For child support, except in "extraordinary cases," new spouse or non-marital partner income is generally not considered when calculating guideline child support, although the court may inquire into a new spouse's income for the purpose of seeing how it would impact the remarried party's tax filing status and tax bracket when calculating guideline child support.

2) With regard to spousal support:
(a) For the spouse receiving spousal support, spousal support usually terminates when he or she remarries, and there is a presumption of a decreased need for spousal support of he or she is cohabitating with a member of the opposite sex.
(b) For the spouse paying spousal support, the new spouse/partner income is not considered when determining or modifying spousal support.

After explaining this to the client, I was asked if the new spouse income would have any impact on the prior spouse's request for attorney fees. The client wondered if the court would consider the new spouse's income when considering the prior spouse's request for attorney fees. My initial thought was there should not be any consideration of new spouse income, however after conducting some research, I found a 2009 case, Alan S. v. Superior Court , which held while new mate or partner income is generally irrelevant in child support matters, it is not statutorily irrelevant in pendente lite fee orders.

However, after a closer analysis of the underlying facts in that case, we believe the holding is limited to a narrow circumstances, as it was more of a case regarding how the court, in low and middle income cases, can achieve the legislative goal of assuring that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party's right.

In Alan S., after a string of custody hearings and orders, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $9,000 to Wife for her attorney fees at rate of $300 per month. Representing himself, Husband appealed the decision challenging the attorney fee order. Husband claimed the order impacted his own ability to retain counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the challenged orders appear to assure that, while Wife is well represented by obviously able and diligent counsel, Husband will be left to "haplessly flail away" and reversed the attorney fee order, with directions to the trial court to hold another hearing to consider all relevant matters affecting Wife'sfee request, including factors such as Husband's $800/mo deficit financed by credit cards; the assets of parties, including equity in residences; Husband's inability to afford to visit the children; Husband's $25,000 credit card debt for previous attorney and $1,800 per month child support obligation; and the new mate or "significant other" income of each party (Husband was cohabitating and Wife had remarried).

The Appeal Court's decision relied on Family Code §2032, which requires court to consider parties' needs considering the factors listed in Family Code §4320. Reading statutes together, the Appeal Court believed the statutes make it clear that the pendente lite fee award should be the product of a nuanced process in which the trial court tries to get the 'big picture' of the case, i.e., 'the relative circumstances of the respective parties'. In the Alan S. case, the trial court took a truncated approach, and the record did not show that the trial court considered a number of the relevant factors bearing on the case, including the new mate or "significant other" income of each party.

The Court of Appeal also relied on a case called In re Marriage of Geraci , in finding that the new mate or significant other income was relevant for attorney fee awards because of "possible economies of scale," coupled with the "expansive language of Family Code §2032--the relevant circumstances of the respective parties."

The case was remanded to the trial court. The trial court, on remand, would have to consider new mate and significant other income (among other factors) when reconsidering the attorney fee award, however, the final orders that were made by the trial court are unknown.

It seems that new spouse or significant other income only came into play in the Alan S. case because the attorney fee award prevented Husband from being able to afford to retain counsel for an upcoming custody hearing, while Wife was able to afford to retain counsel. More significant than new spouse or significant other income are the issues of need and ability to pay under Family Code Section §2030, as well as many of the other Family Code §4320 factors, such as the income, assets and liabilities of the parties.

As a San Diego Family Law Attorney, I often receive calls from former clients asking if they can find out their former spouses current income without incurring a lot of attorney fees or filing an expensive, time-consuming motion. Here are two examples of those calls:

• One former client suspected her Ex-Husband was earning significantly more than he was a year ago when their divorce was finalized because he recently bought a new car and moved into a bigger house. He refused to tell her his current income. If true, the amount of child support she receives could increase.

• Another former client knew that his Ex-Wife received a promotion, but did not know if a raise came with the promotion. She refused to tell him if she received a raise. If she received a raise along with her promotion, then his child support obligation would decrease, or depending on how much of a raise she received, he might be eligible to receive child support from her.

Fortunately for both clients, the Family Code provides for a way to obtain a current Income and Expense Declaration by permitting a party to engage in inexpensive post-Judgment discovery prior to filing a Motion for Modification of Child, Family or Spousal Support. More specifically, at any time after the entry of a Judgment of Dissolution or Legal Separation that provides for the payment of child or family support, either party, no more than once per year, may request the other party to produce a completed current Income and Expense Declaration with copies of that party's pay stubs and prior year state and federal income tax returns attached.

A request for a current Income and Expense Declaration with a copy of the prior year tax return and pay stubs is the only limited discovery allowed if a Motion for Modification or Termination of the Support Order is not pending. That means if a party wants to engage in other methods of discovery, such as Interrogatories (which are questions asked of the other party) or a Request for Documents, then he or she would first need to file a Motion for Modification or Termination of the Support Order.

By allowing a party to obtain an Income and Expense Declaration from their former spouse, the requesting party can determine whether filing a Motion for Modification is appropriate. If it turns out that there is no change of income, then the filing of a Motion for Modification could be expensive, especially if there is no (or minimal) change to the amount of support paid or received.

Sometimes, a former spouse will ignore the request for a current Income and Expense Declaration. If this occurs, the Family Code provides that if there is no response within 35 days, or if the Income and Expense Declaration is incomplete as to any wage information, or if pay stubs and income tax returns are not attached, then the requesting party may serve a Request for Income and Benefit Information directly on the employer of the other party. The non-responding party may also be sanctioned by the court for his or her failure to comply with the initial request.

Please contact us if you wish to obtain a current Income and Expense Declaration from your former spouse, or if you have received a Request for Production of An Income and Expense Declaration After Judgment from your former spouse.

Continue reading "CAN I FIND OUT HOW MUCH MY EX SPOUSE CURRENTLY EARNS?" »

Massachusetts has passed a landmark law regarding alimony payments, The Wall Street Journal reports. The new law aims to end lifetime payments, particularly in retirement or once a former spouse finds a new partner.

Divorcing couples should know and understand the distinct differences between child support and alimony or spousal support in San Diego. Spousal support is generally treated as taxable income for the receiver and as a tax deduction for the payer. Child support is tax free for the recipient but not deductible for the payer.

Child support may be more collectible than spousal support -- i.e. the court system may be more likely to enforce the court's orders. And, of course, as we reported this summer on our San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog, cohabitation or remarriage generally does not impact child support payments in San Diego or elsewhere in California. That is not necessarily true of alimony or spousal support.

Spousal support can be awarded on a temporary or permanent basis. Temporary spousal support usually covers the period of time between separation and when a divorce ends. Permanent alimony is typically awarded based on the length of the marriage. A short-term marriage in California, one lasting less than 10 years, may result in an alimony award lasting up to half the length of the marriage. In long-term marriages, judges are given great discretion and payments may be awarded indefinitely.

Together with the initial property awarded to each spouse, the trifecta will go a long way toward determining your future quality of life.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, the recession has brought the contentious issue of long-term alimony to a boiling point. Statistics show unemployment has hit males the hardest. And, as the Baby Boomer generation hits the gates to retirement, many former husbands are looking to reduce or eliminate payments. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled lifetime alimony was inappropriate if a woman was in good health, had a stable job and had received considerable assets during a division of property. And Florida recently set a higher bar for permanent spousal support awards.

The new law in Massachusetts takes effect next March. Those paying lifetime alimony can apply for modifications beginning in 2013. For women counting on these payments in retirement, a reversal could be financially devastating. The New York Times reports the Massachusetts law calls for alimony for up to half the length of a marriage lasting less than five years. For long-term marriages -- those lasting 15 to 20 years -- payments could last for up to 80 percent of the length of the marriage.

Your attorney needs to work toward a divorce agreement that adequately provides in all three areas: property division, spousal support and child support. The pros and cons of each award must be weighed with the client's financial future in mind.

Continue reading "Alimony, Child Support, Property Division, a Financial Trifecta in San Diego Divorces" »

The Associate Press is reporting that Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt will keep paying $225,000 in temporary spousal support to his ex-wife, Jamie McCourt, over the next couple of months, but that money once used toward the mortgages of six luxurious homes will come from a $1.1 million escrow account funded by the sale of one of their other homes that was located near the Playboy Mansion.

When child and spousal support are at issue in a San Diego divorce, the issues can be resolved two way; either by agreement of the parties, or the court will make an order after having a hearing on the issue.

When parties reach a support agreement outside of a court hearing, either on their own or through their attorneys, the agreement is called a "Stipulation." To become effective, the terms of the Stipulation must be written down and filed with the court.

When an agreement regarding child support is reached, the written Stipulation that is filed with the court is required by the San Diego County Superior Court Rules to contain the following child support acknowledgments:

1. Each party is fully informed of their rights concerning child support;
2. The order is being agreed to without coercion or duress;
3. The agreement is in the best interests of the child involved;
4. The needs of the child will be adequately met by the stipulated amount of support; and
5. The right to support has not been assigned to the county pursuant to section 11477 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and no public assistance application is pending.

Further, in San Diego County, all written stipulations for the payment of child support must also include the following mandatory language:

"The parties declare all of the following:
1. They are fully informed of their rights concerning child support;
2. The order is being agreed to without coercion or duress;
3. The agreement is in the best interests of the children involved;
4. The needs of the children will be adequately met by the stipulated amount; and
5. The right to support has not been assigned to any county pursuant to section 11477 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and/or Family Code section 17404, and no public assistance application is pending."

In addition to the mandatory acknowledgements and language, the following forms are required to be included with all child support orders (which include Stipulations):

1. A Child Support Case Registry Form must be properly filled out and included with all child support orders issued or modified pursuant to Family Code section 4014; and
2. A Notice of Rights and Responsibilities must be attached to all orders and judgments which include provisions for child support pursuant to Family Code sections 4062 and 4063.

The experienced San Diego Family Law Attorneys at the Law Offices of Nancy J. Bickford are very familiar with all of the requirements of the California Family Code and the San Diego Country Superior Court Rules that must be followed whenever an agreement is reached to make sure the terms of the agreement are enforceable.

In cases in which a stipulation cannot be reached, we will vigorously argue your case at a hearing or trial.

If you are considering a divorce, the most important first step is to consult with an experienced San Diego Family Law Attorney. Call 858-793-8884 in Del Mar, Carmel Valley, North County, La Jolla or San Diego to schedule an appointment with Nancy J. Bickford.

After a divorce, one party may decide to cohabit or remarry. As a San Diego divorce attorney, when this occurs, clients (or former clients) ask questions about the impact of cohabitation or remarriage on child support and spousal support.

What is Cohabitation?

Everyone know what remarriage means, but what about cohabitation? Does staying overnight qualify as cohabitation?

Cohabitation is on the rise. California cases have defined cohabitation as more than a sexual encounter or relationship. It requires living together, sharing day to day life, so that where one lives and dwells, the other lives and dwells. Based on case law, having a significant other stay overnight, even several nights per week, probably would not qualify as cohabitation.

The Impact on Child Support when Either Party Cohabits or Remarries

In general, new spouse or non-marital partner income is not considered when calculating guideline child support.

The court may inquire into a new spouse's income for the purpose of seeing how it would impact the remarried party's tax filing status and tax bracket when calculating guideline child support - is the remarried party filing taxes married filing separately or married filing jointly with the new spouse; how many deductions are claimed; and if filing jointly, does the new spouse income push the party into a higher tax bracket? The guideline calculator applies these factors in its calculation, but does not add in the new spouse's income.

There are always exceptions to rules. In "extraordinary cases" the income of the subsequent spouse or non-marital partner could be considered where excluding that income would lead to an extreme and severe hardship the child(ren). Such "extraordinary cases" include when the remarried parent quits work, reduces income, or intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed, and relies on their new spouses income. This means that a party who remarries well (i.e. the new spouse is so rich that they do not have to work), cannot just quit their job and expect to receive guideline child support based on zero or reduced income. The court would either impute income to the remarried party, or consider the new spouse's income.

However, before including some or all of the cohabitee or new spouse income, the court would also have to consider whether including that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the remarried party, or by either party's subsequent spouse or non-marital partner. This means that the new spouse or cohabite income may not be considered if they have a child or children from a prior relationship, or with the new spouse.

The court makes its decisions on these issues a case-by-case basis.

Impact on Spousal Support when the Paying Party Cohabits or Remarries

The family code prohibits the income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or non-marital partner to be considered when determining or modifying spousal support.

Impact on Spousal Support when the Receiving Party Cohabits

The first place to look is the parties Marital Settlement Agreement to see if there is a provision automatically terminating or reducing spousal support if the receiving party is cohabiting.

Sometimes parties enter into a Marital Settlement agreement that provides for non-modifiable support. In such cases, unless support is specifically terminated or reduced upon cohabitation, then the non-modifiable support provision precludes modification if supported spouse cohabits.

If there is no cohabitation provision regarding spousal support, then the Receiving Party's cohabitation is a change in circumstances triggering the Family Code presumption of decreased need for spousal support. Because this is merely a presumption, the cohabiting spouse can present evidence to prove to the court that he or she has a continued need for support despite the cohabitation. If the cohabitating spouse does not meet this burden, then the court may modify or terminate spousal support.

Impact on Spousal Support when the Receiving Party Remarries

The parties Marital Settlement Agreement controls. If there is a provision automatically terminating spousal support if the receiving party remarries, then the remarriage automatically terminates spousal support.

If there is a provision providing for non-modifiable spousal support despite remarriage, then spousal support continues as set forth in the Marital Settlement Agreement.

As the details of our former Governor's extramarital indiscretions continue to emerge, it is somewhat surprising that neither party has filed for divorce. But while the parties have yet to file for divorce, it appears they are already addressing an issue that arises in most divorce cases involving children: child support.

Radar Online reports that Schwarzenegger is already paying child support to Maria Shriver. In fact, according to the online source, it's been reported that Schwarzenegger is paying "a significant amount of child support" and that he is "also paying for his sons, Patrick and Christopher's private school bills."

While in this case it appears that Schwarzenegger is voluntarily paying for the parties' son's private school tuition, will a court ever order a party to do so absent their agreement? The short answer is yes, under certain circumstances.

Family Code Section 4062 authorizes the court order what family law attorneys often refer to as child support "add ons" (i.e. additional child support). Some of these "add ons" are mandatory, meaning that the court must order them, while others are discretionary, meaning that the court has the option to order them. The mandatory add ons are (1) child care costs related to employment or to reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills and (2) the reasonable uninsured health care costs for the children. The discretionary add ons are (1) travel expenses for visitation and, relevant here, (2) costs related to the educational or other special needs of the children, which would include private school tuition.

So, Family Code Section 4062 authorizes a court to order a parent (or parents) to pay private school tuition. Now the question is: When will a court do so? Generally, courts look to whether there is a history of private school attendance, and for evidence of a child's need for private school or any benefit to the child beyond that which would accrue to any child from a private education. If these circumstances exist, and if an award of private school tuition is appropriate to the parent's income, a court will generally order payment of private school expenses.

Interestingly, it is possible that a court will order a parent (or parents) to pay private school tuition for one child of a family, but not for another child of the same family. In In re Marriage of Aylesworth (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 869, the Court did just that. The Court ordered payment of private school tuition for the son, who had special needs that were shown to be better met by private school, and who had previously attended private school, but did not order payment of private school tuition for the daughter who had never before attended private school, and for whom a need for private school or any benefit to her beyond that which would accrue to any child from a private education was not shown.

While it appears that Schwarzenegger has agreed to pay 100% of the children's private school tuition, the allocation might be different if a judge were to decide the issue. Family Code Section 4061 provides that any amounts ordered to be paid under section 4062 must be divided one-half to each parent, unless either parent requests a different apportionment and presents documentation which demonstrates that a different apportionment would be more appropriate, for example a significant disparity in the parents' incomes. Family Code Section 4061 further specifies how the expenses are then to be apportioned.

FOX News and other media outlets continue to report that the divorce of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver could be among the most expensive celebrity splits on record.

Some estimates say Shriver could get more than the $100 million Tiger Wood's ex-wife Elin Nordegren received.

Division of marital property in a San Diego divorce, or a divorce elsewhere in California, is supposed to be equal under the state's no-fault divorce law. In practice, one party to a divorce can end up with significantly more than half the assets for a number of reasons.

What constitutes community property is one potential area of contention. Property owned before marriage and inheritance to one spouse are both examples of separate property. Valuating community property is another area where a San Diego divorce lawyer will focus attention. For instance, is the marital home valued at current market value? After the economic downturn, a couple's primary residence is often a liability -- with more owed on an upside down mortgage than the property could bring at sale.

With Schwarzenegger and Shriver, there are more complications -- and more assets -- than in many marriages -- even celebrity marriages. And, with allegations about Arnold's infidelity continuing to surface, he may find an unsympathetic judge on the bench. And, with four children and the majority of the earning power, several media outlets have reported child support and alimony could easily top $100,000 a month.

Typical couples should understand the tax implications of alimony and child support as there may be opportunities to move money in one direction or the other. Alimony is treated as taxable income for the receiver and as a tax deduction for the payer. Child support is tax free for the recipient but not deductible for the payer. One caveat to keep in mind: Courts are much better about helping you collect back child support than they are about assisting with the collections of back spousal support.

In the case of Schwarzenegger and Shriver, their marriage will be seen as long-term under California law, which means she may collect alimony for an indefinite period of time. A short-term marriage is defined as one lasting under 10 years, which is in part why it's not uncommon to see celebrity couples split near the 10-year mark.

Other factors worth considering in this split is Arnold's future income from motion pictures -- particularly sequels to movies made during the marriage. The New York Post reported last year that Diandra Douglas -- the ex-wife of Michael Douglas -- moved to collect on his payday for the making of "Wall Street 2," claiming her divorce agreement entitled her to a portion of the proceeds.

For most couples, similar concerns often involve retirement accounts or the earning power of an advanced degree -- such as a medical degree or law degree -- earned during the marriage.

Continue reading "Schwarzenegger Case Illustrates Issues of Marital Property, Child Custody, Alimony in San Diego Divorces" »

Time.com recently posted an article titled: 5 New Reasons to Get (or Stay) Married this Year. What was their number one reason? Children of divorce pay more for college.

The article cites an analysis of student financial aid statistics which concludes, generally, that parents who are divorced contribute less to college expenses than parents who are married. And, even if a parent divorces and then remarries increasing their household income, they still contribute a smaller percentage of that income to college expenses. The article states that, according to the study, a college student with divorced parents pays an average of 58% of all college expenses, whereas a college student whose parents are still married pays only an average of 23% of all college expenses. For a college student whose parents divorce, and then remarry, the student pays an average of 47% of all college expenses.

As a San Diego family law attorney who handles child support cases, I have been asked whether a court can order a parent to pay for a child's college expenses. In my experience, absent an agreement between the parents, a judge will not order a parent to pay for a child's college expenses.

One reason for this is because in California parents generally only have an equal responsibility to support their minor children in the manner suitable to the child's circumstances. Family Code section 3900. And while Family Code section 3911 does extend this duty of support to an unmarried child who has attained the age of 18 years, is a full-time high school student, and who is not self-supporting, until the time the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19 years, whichever occurs first, the obligation still generally stops upon graduation from high school (or age 19 if the child is still in high school).

However, because Family Code section 3911 does not limit a parent's ability to agree to provide additional child support, if a parent would like to agree to pay for a child's college expenses they may do so and that agreement can be made a court order.

As a San Diego family law attorney, many of my clients come to me with the goal of obtaining an order for child support. Many times, my clients do not know that generally, when a court makes an order for child support, the court must also make an order for health insurance for the supported child. Specifically, the court must order that either or both parents maintain health insurance for the supported child if that insurance is available at no cost or at a reasonable cost to the parent.

Because many of my clients do not have the benefit of health insurance at no cost, one question I am asked in child support cases is what will the judge think is a resonable cost for health insurance?

There used to be a rebuttable presumption that any employment-related group health insurance or other group health insurance was reasonable in cost. However, beginning January 1, 2011, this has changed. Now, there is a rebuttable presumption that any health insurance cost which does not exceed 5% of the parent's gross income is reasonable. In determining whether the health insurance cost exceeds 5% of the parent's gross income, we look at the difference in cost between self coverage and family coverage, and it is that amount that cannot exceed 5%.

Say for example that you have an annual gross income of $60,000, and the cost of your employment-related group health insurance is $250 per month for you individually, or $600 per month for a family plan. Under the old rule, the rebuttable presumption would apply simply because the plan was available through your employer. Under the new rule, the rebuttable presumption applies only if the additional cost for a family plan, above and beyond the cost for the individual plan, is less than 5% of your income. In this example, the presumption would not apply under the new rule because the additional cost of $350 per month (calculated as $600 - $250) is more than 5% of the gross income.

San Diego has a long and proud military history. San Diego, which started as a Spanish military outpost and continued to be a military town throughout the years, is currently home to numerous U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard facilities.

Whether you are in the military or married to a military service member the California Court of Appeals recently made a decision that will impact how support is calculated in divorces where one or both parties are in the military.

In the case of In re Marriage of Stanton, Mr. Stanton, a member of the US Navy, filed a request to modify support. At the time of the hearing, his base pay was $4,474.80/mo, Basic Allowance Housing ("BAH") was $2,199/mo, Basic Allowance Subsistence ("BAS") was $323.87/mo and special duty pay was $300/mo. The trial court included his military allowances as non-taxable income when calculating support stating, "If it looks like income, it is income no matter how it's paid to you. And this court has always considered BAH and BAS to be income."

Stanton appealed the trial court's inclusion of his military allowances as gross income on a theory that federal law preempts the inclusion of military allowances as gross income because they are not taxable or subject to wage garnishments.

The California Court of Appeal disagreed, joining other several other state courts which have held that that federal preemption doctrine is inapplicable to military allowances and that such allowances can be included in a party's gross income for purposes of support. The court concluded the preemption doctrine is inapplicable because under United States Supreme Court authority, family law support matters are within the province of state law unless Congress has positively required by direct enactment that state law be pre-empted, and that before a state law governing domestic relations will be overridden, it must do major damage to clear and substantial federal interests. The court held that the inclusion of such allowances does not do major damage to a clear and substantial federal interest and that, to the contrary, the Department of Defense by regulation and otherwise encourages members of the armed forces to fulfill their family commitments.

The result of the Stanton decision is that California Courts will continue to include military allowances such as BAH and BAS as tax free income when determining child and spousal support.