San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Sharing Custody of Children During Religious Holidays

As previously blogged about in "Part I: Religion and Child Custody," a common issue in divorce revolves around which religion a child will follow after parents separate. Another common issue recognized by divorce attorneys is how to fairly share custody of children during religious holidays. The recent passing of the Easter holiday likely posed a special concern for divorcing parents with children. In our previous post, we discussed parents with sole legal custody.

Read more about custody and divorce in Del Mar

Joint legal custody presents divorce attorneys with unique issues. If both parents share joint legal custody, and one parent objects to the other parent's decisions regarding the child's religion, a judge will have to determine whether the child can be raised as a Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. The courts will generally first consider the religion that the child was raised in while the parents were still married and order that the child continue to be raised in that same religion.

Since the right to raise a child as the parent sees fit and the right to freedom of religion are both protected by the Constitution, courts must be careful not to infringe on these constitutional rights while still protecting the best interests of the child.

Joint physical custody means that both parents share in the right to spend time with the child or children. Despite custody agreements, problems always seem to arise with regards to holidays, especially when each parent has his/her own religious beliefs and traditions. Holidays like Mother's Day and Father's Day are usually easy to compromise, because they have alternative days to give each parent equivalent time. However, the same cannot be said for religious holidays such as Easter. Easter does not have an alternative celebration date. Divorce lawyers must consider their client's faiths when providing legal advice.

In order to deal with this problem, many divorce attorneys will advise their clients to agree to alternate custody between holidays each year, such as Easter and Thanksgiving. However, for some parents who are particularly religious or have long-lived family traditions, they do not consider the Easter holiday to be equivalent to the Thanksgiving holiday. Thus, shared custody on holidays needs to be determined well ahead of time and with the children's best interests in mind.

Children With Parents of Different Faiths

Another problem arises where divorcing parents are of differing faiths. For example, where one parent is Christian and the other is Jewish, the Easter and Passover holidays usually pose a concern regarding child custody because the holidays often fall near each other on a calendar. Sometime these two holidays will even occur on the very same day. Therefore, it is extremely important that these situations are discussed early on, and that divorce lawyers draft custody agreements that spell-out exactly what will happen with regards to custody to the greatest extent possible.

www.BickfordLaw.com

Continue reading "Part II: Religion and Child Custody" »

Which Religion do Children Follow when Parents of Different Faiths Divorce?

With the recent passing of Easter, a Christian holiday, and Pesach (Passover), a Jewish holiday, parents of different faiths may be left wondering which holiday their child will celebrate after a divorce. Because divorcing parents don't always agree on whose religion the children will follow after divorce, the Court is often left to make a determination as to which religion the children will practice, if any.

The Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause grants parents a liberty interest in directing their child's religious upbringing. Therefore, Courts must protect each parent's Constitutional right to raise the child as that parent sees fit (as long as the welfare of the child is not endangered). However, when parents divorce, the Courts are often left to decide which parent's constitutional right will prevail in determining the religion of their child. Family law attorneys take a number of factors into consideration when advising clients about their options in regards to their children's religious upbringing.

Child Decides

Often times the Court will simply allow the child to decide which religion, if any, to follow because it is merely an exercise of the child's First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Unfortunately for divorce lawyers, no black letter law exists regarding what age a child must be to decide his or her own religion. However, courts generally consider children over 12 to be able to make decisions about their religious preferences.

By allowing the child to determine his/her own religious preference, the courts are not encroaching upon the parents' Constitutional rights. The parents may continue to practice the religion of their choice, and they have already had the opportunity to exercise their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process liberty interest to direct their child's upbringing.

Parent With Sole Legal Custody

When a child is not deemed fit to decide for himself/herself, divorce attorneys note that the court will look to which parent has been awarded legal custody. As discussed in previous blogs, legal custody gives a parent the right to make decisions regarding a child's health, education, welfare and even religious decisions. If a parent has been awarded sole legal custody of the child, then that parent alone can make all the decisions regarding the child's religious preference and activities without getting the consent of the other parent or an order from the court.

Parents with Joint Legal Custody

Tomorrow, in "Part II: Religion and Child Custody", we will discuss the issues presented to divorce attorneys by parents who share joint legal custody of their children.

Continue reading "Part I: Religion and Child Custody" »

Former MLB and NFL legend, Deion Sanders, is use to battling to the top. But this time, his three children were on the line. As we have previously blogged, Sanders filed for divorce in 2011. Luckily for Sanders, he came out on top again when a Texas judge recently awarded him full custody of his 9 year old daughter. Sanders had also previously been awarded full custody of his two sons, 11 and 13, but had only been given joint custody of his daughter with estranged wife, Pilar. This leaves us to wonder, what exactly does Sanders' "full custody" award entail? As divorce attorneys know, in California, two types of custody exist: "legal" and "physical". Each type of child custody may be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly between divorcing parents.

Legal Custody:

Legal custody refers to a parent's right to make decisions about the child's health, welfare and education. If a parent is awarded "sole legal custody" by the court, then he/she is the only one who has the right to make such decisions and may do so without consulting with the other parent. However, when divorcing parents are awarded "joint legal custody," they both have the right to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, and education.

Since Sanders has been awarded sole legal custody of all three children, he now has full range to make decisions about where the kids will go to school, whether they should receive medical care and whether they will engage in religious activities, without consulting with Pilar.

Read more about the divorce process in San Diego

Physical Custody:

Physical custody, on the other hand, refers to where the child lives after divorce. The parent who has physical custody is the one who has the right to have the child physically with them and in their home. Physical custody, like legal custody, can be awarded solely to one parent or shared jointly. When a divorce lawyer makes an argument for "Sole physical custody," this means that the child will reside with only one parent. That parent is typically referred to by attorneys and the court as the "custodial" or "residential" parent. Divorce lawyers and judges refer to the other parent as the "non-custodial" or "non-residential" parent. It is important to note that the court can still order visitation time for the non-custodial parent.

Learn more about the family law attorneys at the firm

"Joint physical custody" means that a child's time is divided equally, or close to equally, between both parents. Family lawyers in San Diego will draft such custody orders so that each parent has separate but significant periods of physical custody. Typically, parents share joint legal custody of their children. Divorce attorneys will argue for sole legal custody if one parent is deemed unfit, the parents are completely unable to make decisions together, or it would be in the child's best interest to have sole legal custody with one parent. For Sanders, winning the child custody battle with Pilar now means that all three kids will be living with dad!

Continue reading "Celebrity Divorce - Deion Sanders Awarded Full Custody of Children" »

Former Philadelphia 76er Allen Iverson's divorce has been finalized. The resolution came after the second divorce filing by Iverson's wife, the first having been filed 15 months prior and then withdrawn according to TMZ.

Standing a mere 6 feet (relatively speaking, of course) Iverson was the number one draft pick of the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers in 1996. He went on to be named NBA Rookie of the Year for the 1996-1997 basketball season. He continued his career with eleven NBA All-Star nods, and won the All-Star MVP award in 2001. Iverson is father to five children.

According to LA Times.com, in the divorce decree the judge awarded Iverson's wife legal and physical custody of the parties' five children. In doing so, the court did not have kind words to say about Iverson. According to the article, the court stated about Iverson: "he does not know how to manage the children; has little interest in learning to manage the children and has actually, at times, been a hindrance to their spiritual and emotional growth and development."

Iverson will have some visitation with his children, provided he complies with certain conditions imposed by the court. Notably, one condition is that he is not allowed to consume any alcohol for the next 18 months, nor consume alcohol within 24 hours of visiting with his children and, logically, during the visits. Reportedly, he is also required to obtain therapy and attend AA for the next year. According to the LA Times article, the divorce decree states that Iverson has "an obvious and serious alcohol problem, which has caused him to do inappropriate things in the presence of the children while impaired", things such as, the article reports, leaving the children unsupervised.

While Iverson's divorce is in Atlanta, Georgia, here in San Diego, divorcing parents are similarly faced with issues of alcohol abuse and its implications on custody and visitation issues in the San Diego Superior Court. To address such issues, the California Family Code includes specific provisions.

Prior to making an order for joint physical custody, which means that each of the parents will have significant periods of physical custody, the San Diego family court is required to consider the habitual use of drugs or alcohol by one or both of the parents. Specifically, Family Code §3011 provides: "In making a determination of the best interest of the child in a proceeding...the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider all of the following: (d) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent..."

What happens in the case where one parent alleges habitual or continual use of alcohol by the other parent, but the parent facing those allegations denies them? Family Code section 3011 continues: "Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services..."

In some cases, there may be a document which can easily corroborate the allegations; in others, it may be a bit more difficult. If it can otherwise be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by a parent, a judge may order that parent to undergo testing for the use of alcohol. If such testing is ordered, it must be done by the least intrusive means. Further, the parent against whom the allegations are made (and thus who is ordered to submit to the test) has a right to a hearing to challenge the results. A positive test cannot alone be the determinative factor in a custody and visitation ruling; the court is still required to balance all factors to determine the best interests of the children.

Continue reading "Allen Iverson's Divorce Finalized" »

www.dailymail.co.uk recently published an article with the headline "Divorce after a child turns seven makes them more likely to perform badly at school." The article cites a study conducted by the Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre that was published by the Department for Education. The government-funded study found that children whose parents divorced after the child had turned seven are more likely to perform poorly and have behavioral problems. The article opined that the lesser impact on children under the age of seven is likely because divorce may have a lesser effect on younger children as they cannot fully understand the implications.

Divorce was one of the 40 factors looked at by the study for its effects on a child's scholastic achievement and behavior. Among the other factors looked at were number of siblings, number of hours spent in front of the television, the way in which rules are enforced in a household, grandparent involvement and general parenting skills, to name a few. The study projected that the effects on children at the age of seven are likely to continue into the child's teen years and adulthood. The study highlighted the importance of family separation, conflict and divorce on the development of children.

Of course, divorce is in some cases unavoidable. In those cases where divorce must occur, what can San Diego parents do to minimize the conflict and the effect on their children?

One tool parents can utilize is a well thought out parenting plan. When an issue of custody and visitation is brought before the court in San Diego, the parents are required to participate in custody mediation. They can do so either at Family Court Services, which is a free program run by the San Diego Superior Court, or they can opt for private mediation at their own expense. The stated purpose of this custody mediation is to reduce the conflict which may exist between the parties and to develop a custody and time-sharing agreement which is in the best interests of the children. It is not uncommon, however, that San Diego parents are unable to reach an agreement through mediation. In that case, the mediator issues a report and recommendation which is then considered by the court in making its ruling of the custody and/or visitation issue. Frequently, in these recommendations we as divorce attorneys see language included in the proposed parenting plan that is geared towards reducing conflict between the parents. Some such provisions which immediately come to mind are:

"Neither parent shall make negative statements about the other in the presence of or hearing of the children or question the children about the other parent."

"The parents shall communicate directly with each other in matters concerning the children and shall not use the children as a messenger between them."

"The children shall not be exposed to court papers or disputes between the parents, and each parent shall make every possible effort to ensure that other people comply with this order."

Such language may be included in a parenting plan at the recommendation of the mediator, but can also simply be included by agreement between the parties.

Another tool for parents is the resource Kids Turn. Kids' Turn is a San Diego non-profit organization dedicated to working with the entire family to achieve an amicable and healthy divorce.

Read more about Kids' Turn or visit their website.

The study published by the Department of Education did qualify its results by stating that "Some children do relatively well despite unpromising circumstances and some do relatively poor despite having a good start." It's nonetheless helpful for San Diego parents to be aware of how a divorce might impact their children and to take steps that may be appropriate to mitigate any negative impact there may be.

Continue reading "UK Study looks at the effects of divorce on children" »

As we have previously blogged, Bethenny Frankel, former star of The Real Housewives of New York, and founder of Skinnygirl Cocktails, recently filed for divorce from husband, Jason Hoppy. The parties have a daughter, age 2.

Reportedly, the parties' separated on December 23, 2012 and Frankel filed for divorce just shortly thereafter (LA Times) It appears from Frankel's Petition that she is requesting primary physical custody of the parties' daughter and child support payable by Hoppy, in addition to life insurance, exclusive occupancy of their home and medical, dental, vision and orthodontic care for her and the child. Sources estimate Frankel is worth at least $25 million. This begs the question: Is child support appropriate in cases where the custodial parent is an extraordinarily higher earner?

Under Family Code section 4053, "[I]n implementing the statewide uniform child support guideline, the courts shall adhere to the following principles:

(a) A parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life.
(b) Both parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children.
(c) The guideline takes into account each parent's actual income and level of responsibility for the children.

As such, regardless of Frankel's ability to support the parties' daughter, the court is tasked with ensuring Hoppy shares in that responsibility as well, pursuant to the statewide child support guideline. The guideline must account for both parents' actual income. In this case, CelebrityNetWorth.com reports that Hoppy has a net worth of $5 million himself, the majority of which he made as a high end New York real estate agent. His income must be considered in determining whether a support order is appropriate in this case.

Find more resources for divorce in San Diego

The statewide child support guideline is presumptively correct. If, under the statewide child support guideline, Hoppy is obligated to contribute to the support of Bryn, might he be able to somehow "rebut" the presumption? Could Hoppy perhaps show the court that he too has an extraordinarily high income such that presumed support would exceed the needs of the child, and in doing so successfully rebut the presumption?

Family Code section 4057 provides: "(b) [t]he [presumed child support award i.e. the guideline amount] may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that...(3) The parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the child." To date, no case has defined "extraordinarily high income" for purposes of this section. Rather, it appears to be left to the discretion of the judge to determine what level of income may qualify. A judge may consider the local economic conditions in his or her analysis. But, because under Family Code section 4053 as mentioned above, "children should share in the standard of living of both parents" (Fam. C. section 4053(f)), consider that the needs of a child are relative to the parents' income, even if that income is extraordinarily high.

It should be noted that before a judge can deviate from guideline child support, he or she must first calculate the guideline amount based, generally, on both parents' incomes and their respective time share with the child. Only after that is done can a court go on to make the necessary findings as to why a different amount should be ordered. (Fam. C. section 4056(a)).

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. 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 today.

We have previously blogged about different ways technology can be used to gain an advantage or gather evidence in a dissolution proceeding. However, ex-spouses are now learning how to use the advances in technology to foster cooperation and harmony post-separation. Many divorcing couples would prefer to sever the ties between them completely after their divorce is final. This goal is unattainable for ex-spouses who will continue to share custody of minor children for years after separation. The new trend called "joint custody - at a distance" encourages splitting couples to communicate electronically rather than during "in person" exchanges in order to reduce the emotional tension during a "drop off" or "pick up".

Many parents have found that they fight and argue less in front of their children if they are able to express their emotions through other outlets. E-mail communication, online calendars and a number of other online resources are all available to conflicting parties who share children. By sharing an online calendar parents can easily coordinate a child-sharing schedule. All of the child's activities and plans are readily available to view and change without any need for in-person or telephonic communication between the parents.

Our Family Wizard is a common solution for parents in conflict. A judge may order parties to use Our Family Wizard, a program which tracks all communication, expenses, and even sends notices to the parties regarding their obligations. Because the communication between parents can be supervised by the judge and attorneys involved in the case, the parties are incentivized to speak civilly to each other. This form of communication can take away the aggravation and emotional side of child-sharing and ease the tension and stress for the children involved. The program can be purchased for approximately $100 per year.

Another form of technology frequently appearing in custody orders is Skype. Skype is a free program that allows two or more people to have an online video conversation. In cases where both parties cannot easily see a child frequently, the court may order "Skype visitation". During a Skype visit, a parent can have a video conversation with the child. Skype also permits conversations to be recorded and can ensure that the visiting parent is getting enough video time with the child. Additionally, a parent may be ordered to purchase a cell phone for the child in order to avoid any telephonic communication between the parties. This way, if a parent wishes to speak to his or her child during the child's scheduled time with the other parent, he or she can reach the child directly.

Divorce can be an intimidating and confusing process. If you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody or support, please don't hesitate to contact us. 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.

Domestic violence and child abuse are not limited to physical violence, but also include emotional abuse. Modern Family actress, Ariel Winter, has recently been named a victim in an emotional abuse scandal with her mother, Chrisoula Workman. Although Ariel's claims of physical violence were unsubstantiated by the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS"), DCFS did find evidence of emotional abuse. As a result of the DCFS findings, on November 20th, a judge ordered Ariel to remain in the custody of her adult sister, Shanelle Gray.

The DCFS report also contained recommendations for the 14-year-old Ariel's future care. According to DCFS, it is in Ariel's best interest for Ms. Gray to be awarded permanent guardianship. Workman's attorney, Anita Gumm, vehemently opposed the idea that Gray be awarded temporary or permanent guardianship of Ariel. Gumm argued that 34-year-old Gray is too young to act as guardian despite being old enough to have a family of her own. Due to Ariel's well-known role on the popular television show, Modern Family, Gumm also suggested that Gray was seeking guardianship over her for individual gain. Apparently the judge disagreed with Gumm's representation of Gray's motives since he awarded her temporary guardianship. A hearing on permanent guardianship has not been set.

In a case such as the Ariel Winter's case, the adult who becomes the guardian of an abused child does not necessarily need to be a family member. Any family member, friend, or other adult who knows the child may ask the court to become his or her guardian. Because Gray is Ariel's sister, the two girls likely share a close relationship that will make Ariel's transition away from her mother much easier.

As Ariel's guardian, Gray now has a number of important responsibilities. Guardians are responsible for the health care and education of the minor child. This means that, as guardian, Gray has the ability to make medical decisions for Ariel. Additionally, Gray may choose where Ariel attends school. This may be a complicated decision considering that Ariel is an actress on a hit television show. Although guardians have the right to make decisions for the minor child, the child's parents still remain responsible for financially supporting that child. If the guardian wishes to further sever ties between the child and his or her parents, the guardian may choose to provide financial support without help from the parents.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer 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.

As we have previously blogged, Halle Berry is entrenched in a bitter custody battle with Gabriel Aubry. Berry and Aubry separated in 2010 and reached a custody agreement in 2011; however, the former couple's agreement did not suit Berry after she got engaged to Oliver Martinez. Berry intends to relocate to France with her new fiancé, Oliver Martinez, but requested the court's permission to bring her daughter along first. On Friday November 10th, the judge denied Berry's request to allow her daughter, Nahla, to move to France.

In determining whether to grant or deny a parent's request to move away with a child, the court must assume that the requesting parent will move regardless of the court's ruling. Although it is not generally reality, this presumption requires the court to consider if it would be in the child's best interest to maintain the same lifestyle or live further away from the moving parent. It is generally in a child's best interest to remain in the same neighborhood, attend the same school, interact with the same friends, and maintain as much stability as possible. This is because schedules and routines can help a child adjust to the separation of his or her parents. However, move-away cases present a more complicated scenario. The court must consider two alternatives: either the child will be uprooted from his or her current life or the child will remain in the same location without one of his or her parents.

The overriding concern in any move-away case is the best interest of the child. The judge in the Berry-Aubry case likely relied heavily on an independent custody report provided to the court. The report stated that Nahla had a close and meaningful relationship with her father. Thus, the court determined that it was not in Nahla's best interest to be separated from her father and reside primarily in France. In any San Diego custody and visitation case, the parties must attend mediation before the court will hear a custody and visitation motion. Generally, the parties will meet with a neutral at Family Court Services ("FCS"). If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the neutral will prepare a report, which will be filed in court. The parties may also agree to meet with a private mediator to negotiate custody and visitation issues. Private mediation is more expensive but can help the litigation process move more quickly.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer 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.

Child protective services ("CPS") recently visited the seven-year-old star of TLC's Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, Alana Thompson. The controversial show depicts the life of a young child on the pageant circle. However, despite the glamorous style of a pageant princess, Alana's family is always cutting corners to make ends meet. While many viewers criticize the show as "offensive" and "exploitative," it managed to garner 2.2 million viewers. The show caught the attention of CPS with "go go juice." Go go juice is a concoction created by Alana's mother, June. It consists of Mountain Dew, and Red Bull. While under the "influence" of go go juice, YouTube videos surfaced of Alana dancing on a table at a bar for dollar bills.

June defended her daughter's behavior by saying "at least it [the bar] wasn't one of those sleazy ones." The child abuse charges were eventually dropped after the court appointed June an attorney. Although it is not unusual for children in the rural part of Georgia, where the Thompson family lives, to consume road kill or eat junk food exclusively, CPS was concerned about Alana dancing on a bar table for money. Neighbors scrutinized the Thompson lifestyle long before Here Comes Honey Boo Boo aired; however, the visit from CPS really raised eyebrows in the neighborhood.

Fortunately, in Alana's case, the court found no reason to continue investigating the Thompson family. Under California Family Code section 3020, "the legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court's primary concern when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children." The overriding concern of the family court system is the best interest of the child and any domestic violence in a household where a child resides or child abuse is detrimental to a child. Under California Family Code section 3027, the court has the ability to take temporary steps to protect children while further investigation is conducted. Not only does the court have the ability to issue restraining orders but also it may request that the local child welfare services agency conduct an investigation.

Judges are not the only people who can engage child welfare services to investigate the welfare of a child. In San Diego, any person can call the child abuse hotline and provide a referral to a Hotline social worker who will do an immediate assessment of the referral. If this social worker determines that a child is at risk, a social worker is assigned to investigate the situation. In particularly dangerous cases, the social worker and/or enforcement officer may visit the home within a few hours of receiving the referral.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. 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.

In California, the Family Court System is designed to encourage parties to settle disputes and reach agreements regarding contested issues. Specifically in Del Mar and throughout San Diego County parties are required to attend a Mandatory Settlement Conference before their case can proceed to trial. However, despite this strong public policy towards settlement, the California Court of Appeal has clearly drawn a line between what parties can and cannot agree to.

In this Court of Appeal case, Mother (Kristine) first filed a petition at the trial court level to establish a parental relationship between her son, Seth, and his biological father. Since the parties were not married at the time of conception or birth, there was no presumption that Father (David) was in fact Seth's father. Once the court determined, through the use of a paternity test, that David was Seth's biological father, the parties entered into a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement that can be filed with the court and creates enforceable orders. Kristine and David stipulated that David consented to terminate all of his parental rights and Kristine agreed to waive any claim for future child support. In short, the parties agreed to terminate David's parental rights and responsibilities.

Over the objection of Minor's counsel, the trial court was persuaded by the parties' argument that they had the right and ability to contract regarding their respective parental rights. David argued that proceedings to terminate parental rights are not necessarily linked to a pending or contemplated adoption therefore he should not be prohibited from terminating his on the basis that Seth would only be left with one parent. The trial court was also persuaded in part by case law in which the court upheld agreements made by parents prior to conception of a child such as in artificial insemination and surrogacy cases.

Ultimately, on appeal, the trial court's decision was overturned. Although the Court of Appeal agreed that the parties had a compelling interest in deciding how parental rights should be allocated post-birth, it ruled against them. The Court based their ruling on the child's best interest. Because the establishment of the parent-child relationship is the most fundamental right a child possesses, the Court viewed a voluntary termination of parental rights (absent exigent circumstances) as equivalent to depriving the child of a basic constitutional right. The Court held the position that a waiver of parental rights is only an agreement of convenience for the parties and does not consider the best interests of the child. Here, Kristine would not be inconvenienced if David ever changed his mind and wanted to be a part of Seth's life and David would not be inconvenienced if Kristine changed her mind and sought child support. Thus, as evidenced by this decision, the best interest of the child is a powerful standard that trumps the parties' ability to make agreements regarding 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 iis 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.

Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry is entrenched in a bitter custody battle with her ex-husband Gabriel Aubry. The couple split in February of 2010 but has been in court recently fighting for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Nahla. Berry is now engaged to Oliver Martinez who is both a French actor and French citizen. Currently the main issue in the Berry-Aubry custody dispute is Berry's request to move with Nahla to France. Although her new fiancé conveniently lives in France, Berry claims that she is motivated to move by a desire to keep her daughter safe. Berry argues that the paparazzi are endangering Nahla. Unlike the United States, France has laws that protect celebrities from the constant snapping of photos by the paparazzi. Additionally, Berry's stalker Richard Franco has recently been released from prison and she argues that he is again a threat to her and Nahla.

Under California child custody laws, the standard for a move away case such as this depends on whether the parties already have a final custody and visitation order. However, regardless of whether a final order is in place, a judge will likely deny or grant a move-away request on the basis of the best interests of the child. Additional factors the judge will consider include but are not limited to: (1) the child's interest in the stability of the current arrangement, (2) the distance of the move, (3) the current relationship the child has with both parents, (4) the reasons for the proposed move and (5) any other factors the court deems relevant. Although Berry argues that the move is motivated by a good faith desire to protect her daughter, the Family Court Services recommendation suggests that the move is not in Nahla's best interest. Considering the distance between California and France, Nahla's relationship with her father would be deeply affected by the move. According to the report, Nahla has a close relationship with Aubry and separating her from her father would be detrimental.

Under California Family Code Section 7501, "a parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." The current custody arrangement between Berry and Aubry is unknown. If Berry is the primary physical custodial, Aubry could have an uphill battle in his challenge of the move-away request. However, if both parties jointly share physical custody of Nahla, Berry may have a difficult time convincing the judge that Nahla should be separated from her father.

As we have previously blogged, the Family Court Services report may have a dramatic impact on the outcome of a custody case. In this case, the mediator was concerned that Berry was currently entering her third marriage and requesting to move to her fiancé's home country. If this marriage did not work out, it would not be in Nahla's best interest to be uprooted once again. Despite the mediator's recommendation that Nahla not be permitted to move, the mediator was unhappy with the behavior of both parties. According to the report, Berry and Aubry were both admonished for not putting aside their "personal issues" for the sake of Nahla.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. 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.

Before and during marriage, grandparents can provide substantial financial and emotional support to a family. Grandparents often pay for weddings, put down payments on the family home, and create college funds. In addition to lending or gifting money, grandparents also volunteer to babysit daily when both parents have to return to work. The grandparent who provides daycare often transports the children to extracurricular activities and enriches their education. Grandparents may also volunteer to take the children for overnights when the parents need a date night and time alone to nurture their relationship. During marriage, grandparents can play an integral role in child rearing. However, this potentially close and beneficial relationship between grandparent and grandchild may not be so honored upon divorce.

According to the statistics released by AARP, the average grandparent spends approximately $1,000 on his or her grandchild each year. However, despite their generosity and support, grandparents receive little protection in a divorce proceeding. Upon divorce, for a variety of reasons, one parent may limit the visitation of a grandparent. The grandparent may be prohibited from visiting with his or her grandchild while that child is in the care of one parent. The consequences of this prohibition can be devastating if the hostile parent is awarded physical custody while the other is only permitted specific visitation. This sudden change in the grandparent-grandchild relationship is traumatizing for both parties involved.

Although many grandparents attempt to intervene in divorce proceedings to assert their rights to visitation, they are rarely rewarded with victory. In 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Troxel v. Granville. In this case, grandparents petitioned for visitation rights after the mother limited visitation to one day per month and some holidays. The Supreme Court relied on a parent's fundamental right under the Constitution to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children in making their decision. The Court held that requiring a parent to facilitate grandparent visitation against his or her wishes violates that parent's right to make decisions regarding the "care, custody and control" of his or her children. Despite this particular holding, the Court did not find that visitation laws are per se unconstitutional, therefore California still allows grandparents to seek visitation rights.

In certain cases, parents are arguing that they should be required to pay less child support because the other parent is receiving support for the child from a grandparent. In order to avoid this argument, experts are dissuading grandparents to directly provide cash to help pay for the child's expenses. Instead, they suggest the grandparent pay directly for a particular activity such as school, tutoring, or art classes. The most beneficial contribution to the child may be to create a trust or savings account that can only be used for college. Although at the time the children may not see these contributions as a fun gift from their grandparent, they will see the benefit when they are not saddled down with thousands of dollars of student loan debt.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer 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.

As we have previously blogged, child custody laws and presumptions have evolved over time in San Diego. Recently, some states, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, are moving toward a new way of thinking when it comes to child custody and visitation. These states intend to eliminate the concept of "custody" all together. Instead of determining custodial rights of parents upon divorce, courts would instead determine "parental responsibilities." This change would reflect a shift in how children are viewed in society. The idea of "child custody" originated when children were still seen as "possessions" to either be won or lost in a divorce proceeding. Just as the term "wife" has evolved, the concept of children as property has faded from the American conscious. Now, certain states are beginning to change the wording of family law statutes to reflect this modern shift.

By eliminating the word "custody" in favor of phrases such as "parenting time" and "decision making," litigants can better focus on the specific actions of each parent in order to determine which future course of action is in the best interest of the child. The intent behind the new wording is to create a different mindset for all those involved in the case. The change encourages parents to narrow in on parental duties, instead of viewing children as property. Additionally, family courts will have greater latitude and more options when creating a comprehensive parenting plan. The judge will not be forced to place every case in a predesigned box such as those labeled "joint custody" or "sole custody."

Under the California Family Code, a judge may award physical or legal custody. Although the word "custody" is used to describe both, the two terms have drastically different consequences. A parent awarded legal custody has the right and responsibility to make decisions regarding the child's health, safety and wellbeing. A parent awarded physical custody will have the right to spend time with the child. The proposals for change in other states attempt to clearly establish a separation between parenting time and decision-making. The spirit of the existing law will be preserved in this area; however, the new terminology is intended to change how these parental responsibilities are viewed. Proponents argue that the use of the word "custody" to describe both parenting time and decision-making is confusing to the layperson and average litigant. By actually describing "legal custody" as decision-making and "physical custody" as parenting time, the two concepts will be better understood throughout the litigation process. Additionally, the word "visitation" will also be eliminated from family law jargon. If one parent is awarded physical custody of the child, usually the noncustodial parent is awarded visitation rights. This term will be replaced with "parenting time" as well in order to reduce confusion.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer 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.

There has been a back and forth trend in custody and visitation legislation preferring one sex to the other. The first custody laws in the United States automatically granted father custody of the child unless he was determined to be unfit, unavailable, or agreed to grant the mother custody. Later, the "tender years presumption" replaced the paternalistic custody laws. Under this new presumption, mothers became the preferred custodian because they were seen as nurturing and in the best position to provide children with the care they needed. Eventually, this notion faded because it merely perpetrated a gender stereotype and opponents argued that it was unconstitutional. Under the California Family Code today there is no stated gender preference. However, both men and women argue that gender bias exists in the courts against their respective sexes.

The Father's Rights Movement began in the 1970's as a new perspective on which parent is the preferable custodian in a custody dispute. Supporters argue that the family courts are consumed with gender bias against men and blindly award support and custody to women by virtue of their sex. These groups promote changes to family law that emphasize the rights of parents or the child's rights to both parents.

Divorce lawyers have begun targeting husbands who may subscribe to the notion that the family laws and courts are predisposed to favor women. This new type of law firm advertises to men through sports magazines, on the radio, and on television. It targets programming most often viewed by men and less likely to be watched or listened to by women. The men who hire the "divorce for men" law firms fear losing their children and money on the basis of gender. They argue that women are automatically awarded custody and spousal support because of the existence of gender stereotypes and bias. One such firm claims to "specialize in men's issues." This statement is based on the assumption that "men's issues" exist currently in San Diego family law courts. The controlling standard in any child custody and visitation case is the best interest of the child. When considering the various factors outlined by the family code, there is no indication that the gender of each parent should be addressed at all.

Fathers are not the only parents alleging gender bias in the San Diego family court system. In cases of domestic violence, women claim that judges are predisposed against them. In cases involving children, mothers argue that their claims of domestic violence are perceived as merely a tactic to gain an advantage in a future child custody and visitation proceeding. Thus, the argument follows, judges are hesitant to believe their claims of abuse and deny protection based on gender. Further, this belief that mothers are lying about abuse negatively impacts their position in the custody and visitation portion of the case. Whether or not gender bias significantly impacts judicial decisions in San Diego is unknown and these arguments of discrimination may simply be legal tactics used to gain an advantage in court.

Please contact us if you are considering a divorce from your spouse, a legal separation, or have questions regarding child custody and visitation. Nancy J. Bickford is the only lawyer 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.