Posts Tagged ‘Child Custody’

« Older Entries

California Divorce Blog–Divorce With Children

January 1, 2013

I often experience a rise in inquiries about divorce and child custody every January after the holidays.  If you are considering divorce I find that it is best to communicate with your children.  It is best to consult with a psychologist about how to approach this situation with children.  Children need stability and the divorce process can be very unsettling for children. Therefore, the following may be helpful.

1. If possible, tell the children together in private that the two of you will be getting a divorce. Obviously, certain situations will not permit this to occur. For example, if there is domestic violence in your relationship.

2. Make sure you tell the children that it is not their fault. Children often tend to blame themselves for the failure of your marriage or relationship. It is important to tell your children that you both will always love them.  Your children should feel like they are loved by both of you during the divorce process.

3. Do not alienate the other parent from the children. The children should not be forced to “choose sides” or agree with your reason for your divorce.

4. You should Co-Parent with the other parent. Even though the two of you have differences, it is extremely important to ignore your differences when dealing with your children and the other parent.

5. Add Structure to your child’s schedule. Divorce often causes your children to feel insecure.  Therefore, it is very important to have structure so your child will feel as secure as possible when going through a divorce. This means that a structured custody schedule is important to a child.  You do not want your child to feel as though he or she is constantly living out of a suitcase.

Obviously, these are general guidelines which may not apply to your situation. It is best to consult a professional psychologist or Marriage Family Therapist to further discuss.  I hope this helps some families with children who are experiencing divorce.  For any questions regarding your divorce please call Attorney Keith F. Simpson at (310) 297-9090 or visit http://www.simpsonlaw.net.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

California Divorce Blog–How to approach Divorce and the Holidays

December 25, 2012

The holidays are supposed to be a cheerful time but for many people who have a pending divorce or are newly divorced, the holidays can cause increased stress, anxiety and/or depression. People tend to focus on their family holiday traditions which can make people become further depressed. Here are some tips to help you through the holiday season.

1. Donate your time to a charity to give back and help others in need. This will also allow you to start a new holiday tradition which is beneficial to you and those benefiting from your service.

2. Reach out to friends or family for support. This is especially important for people who do not like to be alone during the holidays.

3. Start new holiday traditions.  This can be as simple as eating out at a restaurant, going to a movie or going outdoors for an excursion.

4. Co-parent with your ex-spouse.  Try to make an extra effort to co-parent so your children feel loved and cherished by both parents. It is very important to not say anything negative about the other parent in front of your children. Doing so will only add to your child’s holiday stress level.

5. If you and your ex-spouse are not speaking then remember that it is extremely important that both of you follow the court order regarding child custodial pick up and drop off.  Failure to do so will only add to everyone’s stress level.

I hope this helps families during the holiday season.  Please call Attorney Keith F. Simpson if you have any questions regarding divorce at (310) 297-9090 or visit his website at http://www.simpsonlaw.net.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

California Divorce Blog– Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Comments on Parental Child Abduction in Japan

June 17, 2012

According to multiple sources including the Mainichi Shinbun, a Japanese newspaper, American Diplomat and academic Dr. Kurt Campbell, the current United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, spoke to families of Japanese victims kidnapped by North Korea. During the meeting Assistant Secretary Campbell voiced his support for the Government of Japan to take action on the issue of Parental Child Abduction (presumably urging support for the Hague Convention).  This wrinkled feathers as the Japanese Government views the two issues as separate and distinct. Kidnapping as a state sponsored action as compared with parental child kidnapping.

Certainly the two issues are separate. However, an argument can certainly be made that they are one in the same if the Japanese Government is complicit in allowing parental child kidnappings to occur in Japan. I believe this is the case.

The world has been urging Japan, a first world nation, for years to on to sign on to, and ratify the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  The Government of Japan, which has again stated that Japan will sign the Hague Convention, has requested amendments to it, prior to signing. The problem with this request is that all parties have signed the Convention in its present form.  If Amendments were made to the convention then this would require ratification and likely dilute enforcement of its provisions.  It is best for all non-party nations to sign on to the Hague Convention as children should not be allowed to be spirited away from one country to the next without permission.

The United States Department of State recently made changes in how it approaches cases involving children in Japan.  An American parent recently received communication from the State Department which provided in part that “the Office of Children’s Issues’ (OCI) procedures have recently changed and we will be unable to request future welfare visits for your children, as we are no longer making these requests for access-only cases.”  This seems to indicate that the Department of State will no longer work on these types of cases which is very unfortunate for American parents with children in Japan who are being denied visitation by their ex-spouses. Recently OCI has been referring parents of children abducted to Japan to the Japanese Court system.  As we are all aware, a referral to the Japanese Court System to obtain custody has been a dead end referral to date. It is certainly the very rare exception when any non-custodial parent prevails in the Japanese Court system.  Everyone is aware of this issue, which makes this a sad day for American parents of children stuck in Japan.

I became an attorney because I believe in the Rule of Law. Without law we would have anarchy. There are places in the world where the Rule of Law is non-existent. We all know what happens when this occurs. The Country of Japan does not have the Rule of Law regarding Parental Child Abductions.   I urge Japan to ratify the Hague Convention as they have indicated they may.  Parents and children demand the certainty of the Rule of Law. Without it we are simply left with chaos, which clearly does not work.

Attorney Keith F. Simpson is a California Lawyer in Manhattan Beach, California and represents clients regarding all types of Family Law matters. Please call Keith Simpson today to discuss your question at 310-297-9090.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

California Divorce Blog–Move Away Request

July 9, 2011

As a California Family Law Attorney I am often asked by parents with a custody sharing agreement about how to move away from the area with the children.  This is often referred to as a “Move Away” matter.  Typically, a parent might receive a new employment opportunity out of state, or have family out of state, and decide that it will be better to relocate with the children.  California law does allow for a parent to relocate out of State with the children but only upon the parent first obtaining court approval.  There are many ways to obtain court permission (a court order) which is discussed below. The issue arises when the non-moving parent objects to the Move Away out of state (or out of the area since California is a large state).

I always recommend first discussing the matter with the non-moving parent. If the non-moving parent agrees with the move away then we can simply draft the required documents and request the Court to sign. This is the easiest way to accomplish a move away out of state.

If the non-moving parent objects to the move away then we must file a motion with the court and request a court order to allow the move away out of state.  The non-moving parent will have the opportunity to object to the move away and the court will hold a full court hearing.  If the matter is very complex the court  may order that Minor’s counsel be appointed for the child or children and a California Family Code Section 730 Evaluation occur to evaluate what is truly in the best interest of the children.  After an evidentiary hearing the court will either conclude that the moving parent may move away with the children or the moving parent may not move away with the children.  (The judge cannot order the moving parent to remain in the area however the judge can order the children to stay with the non-moving parent).  These are the possible Court orders.  Therefore, I do not recommend that you attempt to pursue this matter without an attorney.  This area of law is extremely complex and therefore requires legal representation in my opinion.

Now for the law on Move Away matters. In California, the Custodial Parent has a presumptive right to change the children’s residence.  By statute, the parent with sole physical custody of the children has the presumptive right to change the children’s residence—i.e., to move away with the children; courts will not interfere with that decision (enjoining the relocation or changing custody) unless the move is detrimental to the child. “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.” [Fam.C. § 7501(a); Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 C4th 25, 32, 51 CR2d 444, 449; see Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 C4th 1072, 1094, 12 CR3d 356, 372—custodial parent's presumptive right to relocate with children not dependent on whether parents had history of cooperative coparenting]

Codified public policy: The Legislature has elevated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burgess (the modern-day seminal case in this area), as developed below, to statewide public policy: “It is the intent of the Legislature to affirm the [Burgess] decision … and to declare that ruling to be the public policy and law of this state.” [Fam.C. § 7501(b)].

However, there is not an absolute right to relocate or Move Away.   Section 7501 unambiguously provides that the custodial parent’s right to relocate with the children is presumptive only—not absolute; that right may be curtailed if the move would result in detriment to the children. This is so even if the custodial parent has been awarded both sole legal and sole physical custody; he or she nonetheless has no “inherent” or “absolute” right to change the children’s residence. “[T]he statute contains no qualifying language purporting to limit its application to parents with only certain custodial rights.” [Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 C4th 947, 957, 38 CR3d 610, 616; see also7:562a re noncustodial parent's standing]

The Standard and burden of proof is as follows:  Generally, the governing standards and burdens of proof in move-away cases are the same as in all custody adjudications:

Initial custody adjudications—best interest analysis: In an initial custody determination, the trial court has the “widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child” (Fam.C. § 3040(b)) and must look to all the circumstances bearing on the child’s best interest (including, of course, the mandatory § 3011 factors, ¶ 7:312 ff.). [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 31–32, 51 CR2d at 449; see Ragghanti v. Reyes (2004) 123 CA4th 989, 996, 20 CR3d 522, 527(trial court used correct “best interest” analysis because parties stipulated there was no existing “final permanent custody order”)]

The trial court must take into account the custodial parent’s presumptive right to change the children’s residence so long as the removal would not prejudice their rights or welfare (Fam.C. § 7501(a)). Accordingly, in considering all the pertinent circumstances affecting the children’s best interest, the court may consider any effects of a contemplated relocation on their rights or welfare. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 32, 51 CR2d at 449; Marriage of LaMusga, supra, 32 C4th at 1087, 12 CR3d at 366]
Stated another way, in an initial custody decision, the planned move and any resulting prejudice to the children must be considered; but those factors do not preclude the court from also considering all other circumstances bearing upon the children’s best interest. The noncustodial parent does not have a burden to show the move will be detrimental; “under the best interest analysis [applicable to initial custody adjudications], the trial court’s consideration of the evidence is not limited by the need to make a threshold finding of detriment.” [See Ragghanti v. Reyes, supra, 123 CA4th at 997–998, 20 CR3d at 528 (brackets added)—although child had lived with Mother first 6 years of her life, trial court acted within its discretion in determining it was in child's best interest to live with Father, awarding him sole custody]

Some questions which will need to be addressed in a Move Away Motion are as follows:

• the children’s interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement;

• the distance of the move;

• the children’s age;

• the children’s relationship with both parents;

• the relationship between the parents including, but not limited to, their ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and their willingness to put the children’s interests above their individual interests;

• the children’s wishes if they are mature enough to make that inquiry appropriate;

• the reasons for the proposed move; and

• the extent to which the parents currently are sharing custody.

As discussed above, this is a very complex area of California Family Law and I therefore recommend that you contact a competent attorney to represent you if you are contemplating pursuing or opposing a child custody Move Away motion.  Please contact Attorney Keith Simpson to discuss your legal matter today at (310) 297-9090 or visit his website at http://www.simpsonlaw.net.  Attorney Simpson is located in Manhattan Beach, California and practices Family Law throughout California.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

California Divorce Blog–Japan Reportedly Nearing Ratification of Hague Convention

April 30, 2011

This week I read Japan Today which reported positive news about Japan and its apparent move to ratify the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  The article provides in part:

“Two weeks ago, the Japanese government made a notable announcement that may make Japan more compatible with the legal conventions used internationally, and will be of particular benefit to non-Japanese spouses of Japanese. The announcement was that by 2010, Japan would sign the the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an international legal construct that attempts to deal with the thorny issue of court jurisdiction when children of international marriages are moved cross-border, often by a parent trying to thwart a court ruling in the previous jurisdiction.

Currently, Japan is known as a haven for disaffected Japanese spouses who, in getting divorced, abscond with their kids back to Japan. Once in Japan, they can dare their foreign spouses to try getting the kids back—something that despite around 13,000 international divorces a year in Japan and more overseas, has NEVER happened.

The reason for this astounding statistic, that of zero repatriations of abducted children from international marriages after the kids have been abducted to Japan, is entirely to do with the attitudes of the Japanese judiciary and their wish to maintain 19th century customs in the face of international pressure. Japan has ratified many parts of the Hague Convention treaties over the years, but in terms of repatriation of kids, they have been claiming for 20 years now to be “studying” the issue.”

Regardless of the reason for this sudden shift in potential policy, it is certainly a welcome change for everyone around the world and especially those parents who have a child with a Japanese citizen.  Unfortunately for parents of children who have already been abducted to Japan, this will provide little sense of relief.  Any provisions to ratify the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction would not apply to child abductions which occurred prior to ratification.  Nonetheless, Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does establish and enforce rights and rules for child visitation.  Unfortunately, even assuming the Japanese government does ratify the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, it will certainly require a monumental change by the Japanese Court system!

Article 21 provides as follows:

“Article 21

An application to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.

The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organising or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject.”

A link to the full text of the convention is as follows: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=24

We will wait and see what Japan decided to do in the following weeks. Hopefully it will be good news for everyone.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

California Divorce Blog–Child Support

February 15, 2011

In California Child Support is money paid from one parent to the other parent to assist with the expenses associated with child rearing.  The California Family Code refers to child support as a support obligation owing on behalf of a child.  (California Family Code Section 17402)  Generally speaking, California law required both parents to support their minor children “in the manner suitable to the child’s circumstances.” (California Family Code Section 3900)

All minor children of the parents are owed a duty of child support.  The obligation to support a child is not limited to the parents’ marital status nor is it limited to biological offspring!  (California Family Code Section 7602; White v. Marciano (1987) 190 CA3d 1026, 1031, 235 CR 779, 782)

Once the issue of parentage is determined, the court will move to decide the issue of child support.  A finding of parentage occurs when the court makes a finding as to who are the child’s legal parents.  In California, courts will use a program called Dissomaster which is a computer program.  The judge will input data into the Dissomaster program to determine the amount of child support one parent will be ordered to pay the other parent.  The types of data include 1) the amount of custody each parent has 2) the respective incomes 3) the monthly expenses 4)hardship expenses 5) multiple other expenses and data.  The Dissomaster will provide a child support number which the court will usually accept and order the supporting parent to pay the non supporting parent.

The guideline formula for computing child support is provided algebraically as follows:  CS = K [HN -(H%) (TN)] (See California Family Code Section 4055(a)).

CS equals Child Support;

K equals the amount of income to be allocated for child support as set forth in Family Code Section 4055(b)(3);

HN equals high earner’s net monthly disposable income;

H% equals approximate percentage of time high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent (where the parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner spends with each child);

TN equals total net monthly disposable income of both parties. (See California Family Code Section 4055(b)(1).

Child support, unlike spousal support, is not tax deductible to the paying spouse.  Furthermore, child support is not taxable as income to the parent receiving the child support.  It is important to have your attorney request child support payments at the outset of your divorce case if you are eligible to receive child support.  The issue of child support is a complex matter and should be discussed with your attorney.  For further questions, please contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson today at 310-297-9090 or read more about California divorce and family law at his websites http://www.simpsonlaw.net or http://www.caldivorce.net

Keith F. Simpson is a Manhattan Beach, California lawyer who practices law throughout the State of California. Call Attorney Keith F. Simpson today with your child support or divorce question.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

California Divorce Blog — Japanese Parental Child Abduction and President Obama

November 17, 2010

It is disappointing that President Obama passed on an opportunity to discuss with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan the epidemic of Parental Child Abductions in Japan.  After all, did not President Obama run on the platform of Change?  It appears that President Obama’s inaction in Japan signals the status quo will remain as policy for the present.

New Jersey Congressman, Rep. Chris Smith, urged President Obama prior to the trip to raise the “heartbreaking” issue of Parental Child Abduction with the Japanese Prime Minister.  Presently, Japan remains the only G-7 industrialized nation that has yet to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention has been adopted by more than 70 countries and is an important tool for those seeking access to and/or the return of a child abducted across international borders.

France recently passed a Resolution condemning Japan for its policy of not only allowing Parental Child Abduciton to occur but actually tolerating the policy.  According to The Japan Children’s Rights Network, Japan has never returned a child brought there by a parent in violation of a United States custody order.  This statement is also supported by the U.S. Department of State website.

Recently the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1326 “Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately…provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children”. Congressional members condemned Japan for permitting human rights abuse against children, denying them the love of a parent, relatives and friends.  Read the full text of H. Res. 1326 by clicking on this link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.1326:  The final vote passed on the Congressional floor.  Now it has been moved to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

I believe that Parental Child Abductions  are currently allowed to occur because most people are not aware of this epidemic.  It is only through blogs such as this as well as the public statements from Representatives, and websites like http://www.crnjapan.net that the public will become aware.  I believe we will see outrage over families being torn apart because of Japanese public policy.  Japanese law must be changed to recognize foreign child custody orders as is the case in all other First World Nations.  President Obama once again had a chance to address this issue with the Japanese Prime Minister, but failed all American Left Behind Parents by letting this golden opportunity slip by.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

International Parental Abduction to Japan

November 10, 2010

Throughout my career as a family law attorney I have encountered the issue of Parental Child Abduction more than I wish to admit. Parental Child Abduction occurs when one parent conceals, and or removes a child from their home jurisdiction without the consent of the other parent. If this occurs within the boarders of the United States there are laws to protect both the children’s and the parents rights.  When law enforcement is involved you should expect that the  children will quickly located.  However, when International Parental Child Abduction occurs and the children are absconded to a foreign land, the chances of reunification can become extremely complicated if not impossible.

Recently events occurring in the world of International Parental Abduction and the country of Japan have been in the spotlight.   Japan is not signatory to The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and remains the only first world nation which refuses to join. The Hague Convention was formed for the express purpose to provide an expeditious method for the prompt return of an abducted child from from one member nation to another member nation. The purpose of the Hague Abduction Convention is to preserve the existing court order and custody arrangement. While the Hague Convention may not be the perfect solution, it is a line of defense for the Left Behind Parent.  Since Japan is not a member nation there is no working framework to return an abducted child from Japan to another country. Unfortunately for American parents, the Japanese courts have been at best, reluctant, to return an abducted child to the United States despite a court order from an American court to do so.

The United States Department of State website provides in part,

“…in cases of international parental child abduction, foreign parents are greatly disadvantaged in Japanese courts, both in terms of obtaining the return of children to the United States, and in achieving any kind of enforceable visitation rights in Japan. The Department of State is not aware of any case in which a child taken from the United States by one parent has been ordered returned to the United States by Japanese courts, even when the left-behind parent has a United States child custody decree.”

http://travel.state.gov/abduction/country/country_501.html

International Parental Abduction is a terrible situation and can often render a Left Behind Parent helpless. They are faced with the prospect of losing custody of their child forever if the Japanese parent returns to Japan.

So, what is an American parent to do when a Japanese parent is threatening to return to Japan with the child or children?

As an attorney representing a parent that is faced with the possible abduction of a child to Japan it is imperative for me to plan a strategy to immediately get into court and educate the judge. Many judges are not aware that Japan is not a party to The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This can and has been shown to sometimes lead to bad decision making.  If an American parent is faced with the possible abduction of their child by a Japanese Parent, making sure the judge is fully informed of his obligations under the law must be the focus of our petition.

Historically judges may choose to order a Japanese parent to post a bond if they wish to vacation with the children in Japan. A bond however has been shown to be useless time and time again.  No amount can replace the love of a parent / child relationship.  No amount can cover possible costs when faced with retaining a Japanese attorney to attempt to litigate the matter in Japan. As set forth above, the United States Department of State is not aware of any case where the child was successfully returned to America. It never happens!! Posting a bond may suffice if the parent is returning to a Hague Signatory nation. Since Japan is not a member nation a bond will never suffice as a safeguard for the non-Japanese parent.

I have found that Japanese parents typically argue to the court that they have significant ties to the community in the United States and pose no flight risk.  There are many reports of Japanese abducting parents stating time and time again that they promise to return after a short trip to see Grandma, never to be seen again. We have to respond and demonstrate to the courts successfully that the Japanese parent does not have significant ties.  There are a number of methods to demonstrate their lack of connection by producing relevant evidence. Another safeguard is to request that the court order the Japanese parent to surrender both the American and Japanese passports.  Unfortunately, there are again numerous reports of the local Japanese Embassy and Consulates issuing “emergency” passports to abducting Japanese Parents.  The American parent should also inform the local airport authorities of the situation and provide a detailed description of the child or children along with any recent court orders. If the Japanese parent is determined to return to Japan then it is vital to prevent the children from boarding the airplane.  Once the plane has departed the Left Behind Parent is in for the fight of their life!

Recently the United States House of Representatives, in H. Res. 1326 as well as a coalition of Ambassadors to Japan have stepped forward and condemned Japan for it’s lack of action when a citizen of Japan breaks International Law by parentally abducting a child.

“…the Government of Japan has refused to prosecute an abducting parent or relative criminally when that parent or relative abducts the child into Japan;”

“the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Charges d’Affaires ad interim of Canada and Spain, and the Deputy Head of Mission of Italy, called on Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted their concerns over the increase in inter- national parental abduction cases involving Japan and affecting their nationals, and again urged Japan to sign the Hague Convention;”

The country of France is also in process of issuing condemnation through their senates special session.

“Japan does not punish the illicit transfer of children and it has not signed the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. “

My hope is that the nation of Japan will become a party to the Hague Convention and allow all left behind parents access to their abducted children immediately. If you are in an international marriage or relationship it is vital that you seek legal advice regarding the custody of your child if the other parent wants to return to his or her homeland without your consent.

For further assistance please contact Attorney Keith F. Simpson of the Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation

(310) 297-9090

http://www.simpsonlaw.net

http://www.caldivorce.net

http://www.lacountyfamilylaw.com

———————————————–

ref:

http://travel.state.gov, http://www.senat.fr, & The Japan Children’s Rights Network – http://www.crnjapan.net

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

California Divorce Blog–Child Custody

October 2, 2010

The one issue in divorce cases which has the potential to make any case become extremely litigious and emotional is the issue of child custody. The breakup of a marriage is usually difficult enough. Try deciding who the children will live with and how often!!

Unfortunately, children often become pawns in a chess match when discussing child custody. For example, one spouse may be angry with the other spouse because of an affair. This spouse may attempt to extract revenge by not allowing the other spouse time with the children. There is a saying that in Criminal Law, you find bad people acting their best in court. In Family Law, you find good people acting their worst in court.

So what is the law regarding child custody? Who decides who will have the children? In California, family law cases are decided by a Judge or Commissioner. There are no jury trials in California Family Law Courts.

California law provides that it is in the public policy of the State to ensure minor children frequent and continuing contact with both parents after their separation or dissolution except when that contact would not be in the child’s best interest. California Family Code Section 3011 sets forth factors which indicate when it is not in the child’s best interest. If there is a question as to whether the issue of frequent and continuing contact conflicts with the health, safety and welfare of the child then the court will typically side with the child’s safety and fashion a visitation order to ensure the child is safe.

Parents often make the mistake of assuming that child custody is awarded according to what is in their best interest. This is not the case. Custody orders are often inconvenient for parents and that is because the orders are made according to what is in the child’s best interest.

If you have any questions about child custody issues please do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Keith F. Simpson, A Professional Corporation, to discuss your case today. Attorney Keith Simpson is located in Manhattan Beach, California. Attorney Keith Simpson writes this California Divorce Blog and practices Family Law in Manhattan Beach, California.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

California Divorce Blog (Spousal Support Options)

September 18, 2010

Recently it seems that many of my cases involve Spousal Support (formerly known as “alimony”). In fact, many cases seem to hinge on the issue of spousal support. I mean that all other issues can be resolved with the exception of spousal support. Spousal support can be, and often is, an emotional issue. Think about it. One spouse is faced with the prospect of breaking up a “lifetime partnership” with the other spouse but may be on the hook for paying spousal support for Life! This can often be difficult to imagine but a reality nonetheless.

So what is spousal support? Spousal support is a court order for one spouse to pay any amount necessary for the financial support of the other spouse (See California Family Code Section 4320). The Court may make temporary spousal support orders from the time the Divorce lawsuit is filed. At time of trial the Court may make permanent (lifetime) spousal support orders. This means that one spouse may be ordered to pay the other spouse support for the remainder of his or her life! There are many factors which the Court will consider when determining the amount of spousal support and the duration. A rule of thumb is the longer the marriage, the more likely the Court will order lifetime spousal support. Any marriage with a duration of ten years has been held to be a “long term marriage” and therefore makes is more likely that a court may order lifetime spousal support.

There are many methods to resolve the issue of spousal support. Typically, the spouse who is the higher income earner will be the spouse who is ordered to pay spousal support. Some options for resolving spousal support are as follows: 1) Agree upon a monthly spousal support amount for the remainder of the supported spouse’s life (or until the supported person remarries or the paying spouse dies). 2) Agree upon a monthly spousal support amount for a defined period (i.e., pay spousal support for five years). 3) Pay a one time lump sum spousal support payment. This option can be a double edged sword and may be a gamble. For the paying spouse, the gamble is that they are betting that by paying a one time lump sum payment the total sum will be less than if they paid a monthly amount for life. If the supported spouse immediately remarries or passes away then the paying spouse will have vastly overpaid the amount of spousal support necessary. The same is true of the supported spouse (i.e., the risk of taking a one time lump sum payment as opposed to spreading monthly payments over a lifetime period). Who knows how long both spouses will live. What is the condition of their health? Does the supported spouse want to remarry in the near future? These are all questions which parties and their counsel should consider when evaluating the tricky and emotional issue of spousal support.

If you are facing difficult decisions regarding spousal support please call Attorney Keith F. Simpson today to discuss at (310) 297-9090. Thank you for reading my California Family Law Blog!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.