Recent Posts in Elkins Changes in the Law Category

Lawyers Who Lie

• See whether the side has done everything the law requires of them in formulating your grounds for "good cause" under Rule 3.1332. If they have and your attorney failed to also comply, this is not good. If neither side did what is required to avoid irregularities, then that is better. If your side did comply but the side did not, that is best and you should point this out in your papers and in oral argument.

• Did both sides exchange the Final Declaration of Disclosure (there is more than one form) and FL-150's within 45 days of the first assigned trial date? The court does not have authority to have a trial when the parties have failed to comply with Family Code section 2105.  Section 2106 clearly states this and Family Code section 2107(d) similarly states that it is not harmless error for trial courts to ignore FC §2105.

• Did the other side comply with all applicable Local Rules regarding trial? For instance, in Riverside County we have local Rule 5.0053 which mandates that a Trial Readiness Conference be set before trial, and at least in Indio that you (or your attorney) sign a form that you understood and will comply with what those rules require. Here is a link to Title 5 of the Riverside County Local Rules for Family Law cases. There may be similar rules in your jurisdiction. Rule 5.0065 discusses ex parte procedures in Riverside County, which generally includes the family law divisions in downtown Riverside, Hemet, Indio and Blythe.

• Draft a declaration that establishes good cause for your request - one that speaks to both justice and procedural issues. Anticipate what prejudice the other side will claim in opposition to your continuance request. Offer to ameliorate it if you can, in advance of the hearing on the ex parte.

• Rule 3.1332(d)(10) permits the court to impose "conditions" if it grants a continuance. These need to be reasonable of course. A frequent condition "no more continuances." Unreasonable requests may be that you are asked to waive a fundamental right that is a key issue in the case itself, i.e., a waiver of spousal support or an agreement that the court will have retroactive jurisdiction at the trial when it does occur to reach back and modify support to the first trial date. Offering to contribute to the other side's attorney fees incurred surrounding the rescheduling may be appropriate under certain facts.

• Before you file your ex parte, be sure to attempt to "meet and confer" with the other side in an effort to obtain a stipulation to continue instead, and in order to discuss how you might minimize their inconvenience and prejudice and to discuss possible reasonable conditions in advance of the hearing that would address those issues. Attach any confirming letters as an exhibit.

• Make your motion as short as possible and author it to read fast - not more than 10 pages including declarations, points and authorities, and exhibits. Judges have no time to read long winded stories.

• Be sure to notice all the parties for the ex parte. For instance, if there has been a Borson motion by either side that attorney (the former, Borson attorney) must also get notice of the hearing and the paperwork at the time you set the hearing.

• Hire your new attorney first and have them make the motion (which is costly in terms of the amount of the retainer they will reasonably require, since if the motion is denied that attorney knows he may be going into a trial that will take immediate emergency hours to come up to speed on).

• If  you haven't retained counsel yet and just want to continue a trial "to get counsel," you have a problem. While this excuse might work at the first hearing on an OSC or regular motion, it is unlikely to convince a judge who is managing his trial calender. 

Good luck with your new attorney!

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

• Will it be useful to the court to permit questioning of this child?
• What will be the risks and benefits to a particular child of being permitted to testify in favor or against a parent?
• How shall testimony occur?  Will it be allowed in open court, or in the judge's chambers? 
• Will there be uniformity between jurists or branches or counties in terms of court policies, or will it just be every department decides for itself how and what rules apply?
• Who besides the judge will be allowed to ask questions of the child?  This includes questioning outside the court proceeding, say when a third party is appointed to obtain the information for the court.
• What type of cross-examination will be permitted, since cross-examination is essential to assuring due process within the adversary court setting by testing the credibility and basis for testimony?
• Will any safety measures be adopted, and will there be any sensitivity to the potential consequences to children once kids are drawn into testifying, since they can't possibly have any understanding of how such testimony will affect their parental relationships with the nonfavored parent?
• Should different standards be applied in deciding to allow testimony from children about their parental preference when those requests are made after therapist based or similar recommendations come out and disfavor a party, as opposed to before they recommendations are known?  After all, what is to stop every disgruntled parent from demanding that their child state their preference (which that parent doesn't like or accept) in every case?
• What testimonial facts will be relevant?  A child's stated preference is one thing, but shouldn't a party or their attorney then be permitted to ask questions about parental coaching?  Spoiling and buying kid's loyalty?  Whether the child wants to live with mom or dad because they don't impose rules in their home?
• Does the court even have enough information to answer the threshold question of whether a child should be permitted to testify without first seeking outside assistance?

In order to succeed in achieving a client's goal of hearing from children when it serves that parent's agenda or perceptions, or in limiting either a child's input or damage to the child by having to voice a preference for one parent over another, custody lawyers and self-represented parties will do well to consider these questions in advance of making requests to the court.

It will be interesting to see if some judges effectively nullify the statutory mandate by imposing roadblocks or alternate routes that keep the questioning outside the family court proceeding itself.

Note: The Judicial Council has now, a year after this article was written, adopted Cal.Rules of Court Rule 5.250. Be sure you read and follow it carefully if a child wishes to express a preference.