Recent Posts in Spousal Support Category

Marriage of Guilardi (11/7/11) 200 Cal.App.4th 770

Working with Family Court Judges

I recently attended the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Conference in Orlando. Two Canadian jurists put on a useful workshop entitled "Dealing With Difficult Judges" and kindly gave their permission to share their materials with you. Many thanks to the Honorable Carole Curtis and to the Honorable Roselyn Zisman - both family court judges within the Ontario Court of Justice system. I summarize their observations and suggestions here, and add a few of my own I. would be grateful, and it might be beneficial to many of us, if you would weigh in on this useful topic by submitting comments!

As these two bench officers freely admitted, judges like all people can be difficult and reactive at times, and it can be quite challenging for attorneys and pro se litigants to know how to prepare for, and best behave within, the often edgy atmosphere of family court. This tension, if not understood or managed correctly, can have negative consequences to the legal consumers for whom family courts exist to serve. My intention is not to criticize the judiciary, since being an effective judge requires vast reservoirs of equanimity and knowledge, but to have a frank discussion about how lawyers and self-represented parties might consider presenting their cases - or in working with cranky judges - in ways that are dignified and productive. My hope is to improve the civility and professionalism of the family court experience for all affected, and to help unrepresented parties to have a fairer access to justice.

Here are some pointers for how not to aggravate your family court judge or commissioner and a few thoughts about what to do if that happens, despite your best efforts. The opinions expressed herein are not one size fits all. I also want to start a dialogue about how to make the job of family law judges easier for them, or - to put it another way - to discuss a bit about how we might help them to help us.

Suggestions for Interacting With Family Court Judges

• Rule #1: Be Prepared

Judges have little patience with attorneys, and pro pro litigants, who aren't prepared when they enter the courtroom. Many litigants don't seem to know what they are asking the court to do, why they are asking for it, and what the best legal or factual grounds are for the orders requested. Courts everywhere, but particularly here in California with the passage of Family Code section 217 (which requires live testimony hearings upon request), are grossly overburdened. Judicial resources are not sufficient to meet demand in these budgetary times, and this places a pressure and premium on directness and efficiency. Economic limitations can also make judges a lot crankier than if they had reasonable and adequate time and resources to manage their caseload and calendars.

Depending on County size, wealth and population, California Family Law Judges typically have between 20 and 35 or more matters on their morning calendars. In the afternoons they are often holding evidentiary hearings for the more conflicted OSC/Law and Motion litigants, or have blocked off afternoons for trials. If they are to move through these calendars by the end of the morning, brevity and efficiency becomes exceedingly important. When do we expect that they will find the time to read what is contained in possibly more than 30 files before taking the bench to listen to oral presentations and cross-examination? For the more diligent judges the answer may be evenings and weekends. Which is often when hard working lawyers likewise find the extra time that they need to prepare for hearings and trial.

Therefore, one of the biggest mistakes that agitates judges is parties or lawyers who aren't prepared and can't present their cases with clarity. If, as a lawyer who is directly paid to identify and communicate the justness of your client's position, you don't appear to care overmuch about your client's case then why should our judges care? Lack of preparation, especially for lawyers, is a cardinal sin.

• Rule #2: Be Prepared For This Particular Judge

In jurisdictions with direct calendar assignments, where a judge is assigned to a case for all purposes or for all purposes possibly until the case is reassigned for trial, learn about the particular bench officer(s) who presides over your case. The more you know the better. Information allows you to make useful assumptions about a particular judge's attitudes and policies.

As Judges Curtis and Zisman note, the best judicial officers are predictable and consistent in their rulings. "A judge's value to the public as a judge is in direct proportion to the ability of the lawyers who frequent the court to predict how the judge will deal with a particular issue." I find this to be so true in my personal experience. Lawyers who know how judges tend to rule on a given issue can with confidence set their client's expectations realistically. Armed with such knowledge, both sides are in a better position to have productive settlement discussions that avoid a "crapshoot" and the associated risks and expense. Moreover, they don't waste time potentially infuriating bench officers with weak arguments that judges may made known that they rarely accept.

Lawyers who are active practitioners in any given court usually have good insights into local judge's attitudes. They may also be aware of information about a judge that is not generally available to the public, like their expertise, practice focus, and reputation before they took the bench. Knowing that while a lawyer your judge participated in a case that generated a published appellate decision on a move-away case, for instance, could provide you a wealth of ideas on how to tailor your presentation. Likewise, knowing whether a judge has been reversed is useful for making sensitive presentations.

Pro per litigants should consider observing a judge going through her calendar over the course of one or more days. You will learn tons about their judicial attitude from watching them in open court, and indeed you may witness other parties get scolded or reprimanded for missteps and so avoid the same mistakes. A simple but classic example is the family court litigant who brings a small retinue of family members who are there ostensibly to provide familial 

• Rule #3: Notify the Court If the Case Will Be Continued the Day Before

Sometimes one or both attorneys or parties intend to seek a continuance of a hearing, possibly because they want to discuss settlement but often because one or both are not ready to proceed or has late papers to submit.

Different judges have very different attitudes towards continuances, particularly where they have already invested the time reading the materials and then are faced with a continuance request. Lawyers who know that a case will not proceed are well advised to contact the courtroom clerk at least a day in advance to give a head's up - otherwise, they may wind up with a judge who justifiably feels "put out" and therefore cranky. Some allow self-represented parties to give advance notice of agreed upon continuances, but the other side will need to confirm it. Often messages must be left on the clerk's answering machine, and you may not know in advance whether they were received or acted upon.

Where both sides have attorneys and a particular judge is known to permit it, counsel should always let the court know one or even two days in advance that the hearing is not expected to proceed that day.

• Rule #4: Look At the Local Court Rules, If Any, and the California Rules of Court

Some counties or individual courts have local rules; many do not. Most judges have their own rules and styles, often never to be found in written form. It never hurts to ask the Court clerk, when the judge is off the bench, whether that courtroom follows any specific preferences, customs, or rules of procedures. 

The state-wide source for procedural rules impacting California Family Law (and Juvenile cases) are the California Rules of Court, beginning with Rule 5.100. Rule 5.118 is one of the immediately most important, since it deals with initiating common OSC and Motion requests for custody, support, etc. These rules apply to all family law matters in all California courtrooms.

The Riverside County Local Rules pertaining to Family Law cases can be found here. Start with Title 5. I discuss these in more detail below. The Los Angeles Family Court Rules can be accessed here. Basically you ought to go to the County website where your case is filed and look for the local rules for that particular venue. If they exist you will be well served to review them for relevant tips and local policies. 

• Rule #5: Talk to the Judge, Not the Other Party or Lawyer

The time to discuss your case or argue with the other side is before you enter the courtroom. It drives judges nuts when two lawyers, two pro se parties, or any combination of them begin to argue at counsel table as though the judge was not present. Keep your focus on the judge, and generally avoid looking at the other party except for emphasis. Never address them directly.

A very important related concept is that if you bring witnesses or support people in the courtroom, tell them in advance to keep control of themselves. This means no interruptions, no head shaking or head nodding, no gasps, and no agitated movements. It is natural that the people your bring to the hearing have a some degree of investment in the outcome. However, when these people act in an uncontrolled fashion, that may affect the court's evaluation of you. Thorough lawyers always remind clients and the support people who accompany them to maintain a even demeanor and not to speak unless spoken to.

• Rule #6: Never Assume the Court Has Read the File, and Never Ask

Judges can be easily overwhelmed at times for any number of practical or personal reasons. Never assume the Court has read your pleadings, but at the same time it is pointless to ask him if he has. Asking the question not only embarrasses the court, if they answer that they have not read it and you wind up getting what you wanted, you are inviting an appeal since appellate courts in California have reversed trial courts for ruling on matters where they've admitted on the record they've not read the file.

Instead, start your presentation as though the Judge has not read the materials. Most judges will interrupt you to advise you when they have read it. Be nimble. At the same time, understand that the court only has enough time to listen to summaries of information, not the entire case. You need to know in advance what your highlights are soundbites are, and they should be presented in as orderly a way as possible. Having outlined these in advance is very helpful in the heat of the moment, where you become distracted by some exchange you did not expect and must return your focus to your goals. Outline your highlights on a notepad in a way that a given sentence triggers your memory of the remaining points you wish to make.

• Rule #7: Make It Easy for the Judge

• Rule #8: Avoid Head-Butting With the Judge (and the Other Side)

Whether or not a judge seems difficult or cranky, it does not help to get into a head-butting contest with him or her because you just can't win it. Head-butting may be a "kiss of death" for an advocate; the issues themselves have degenerated into an ego contest, and if you are in court to serve your ego you will likely have an unpleasant outcome. Remember, people are watching, including court staff. The Judge not only knows that she is the supreme power in the courtroom, she has her dignity to protect. Confrontations with judges suggests a battle between equals, and you are not equal. It also implies a winner and a loser. If you head-butt with a Judge, you are asking them to prove to everyone present who is in control. That usually ensures that you will be shown to be the loser for the simple reason that finding in your favor may then imply that you are in control.

Head-butting might well begin with an attitude on the part of the judge. If this occurs, move into "damage control." Immediately lower your tone. Avoid flailing hands or arms. Speak evenly, slowly, and respectfully. This may defuse the situation before it becomes impossible to redeem. As Judges Curtis and Zisman put it "You must do whatever you can to end this contest. Consider a retreat, whatever that means in the circumstances. Move your reaction into this range...:  be calm, be measured, be focused, and be polite (be unfailingly polite)." With a particularly difficult judge, the hotter it gets the calmer you must become.

A cautionary note here: Many judges I know respect an advocate or a person who will stand up to them, and not simply fold because there may be some debate. So much depends upon your tone and style even as you perhaps stubbornly, but calmly, present your arguments or evidence. Hence, do not take these suggestions as meaning that if the judge seems to disagree with you that you should become silent. It is how you convey your message that often matters most.

Be persistent, unless it becomes obvious that the Court has heard enough. Often judges will tell you this.This can become a real problem if you have not had the opportunity to make "a record" for purposes of a possible appeal (something you never want, but sometimes must consider).  If you are foreclosed from making a record, you should note that respectfully before quitting.

Similarly, it is usually pointless to argue with a judge once they have ruled on any given matter, but if you feel there is more to say and you are uncertain whether the judge has heard as much as she will, you might try "Your Honor, before the court moves on, might I add one more thing?" 

• Rule #9: Never Lie to the Court

It is amazing to me how often attorneys will intentionally misstate facts to the court, or create inflammatory arguments that has little basis in fact. I am sad to tell you this happens a lot, and in fact this is one reason why divorce attorneys may be viewed as bottom feeders. Yet, this is only a small, if vocal, segment of the legal practitioner population. Similarly, parties in relationship disputes are highly motivated to misrepresent information for more directly obvious reasons. 

As a advocate, one of the most important things that lawyers possess is their reputations. Judges who will talk about it will candidly admit that they are every bit a catty lot as the next person or profession. The talk in chambers, they talk in lunchrooms, they talk in restaurants, they talk in meetings amongst themselves. One of the common topics is about the lawyers who come into their courtrooms. Their views about particular attorneys' reputations can be infectious within the judicial community, which is not to suggest that they do not attempt to remain impartial on a case by case basis. It is true that sometimes it feels that attorneys who too freely spin the facts get away with it. This is one reason I am a proponent of monetary sanctions against attorneys directly, something I suggest in my Davenport Blog. One consequence of unaccountability is that opposing sides, and unrepresented parties, take their cues from the lawyers they come into contact with and mimic bad behavior of those they observe. The behavior of legal professionals matters. terrible message to send. There are so many reasons why it is imperative that lawyers not be deceitful.

Never lie to the Court, whether you are a lawyer or a party. Once a judge gets fixed on the idea that your information is untrustworthy it will pervade his view of you within your case, and is likely to haunt you. There are subtle and not so subtle ways of punishing litigants by imposing outcomes that can be catastrophic for your life, from fixing alimony or support orders above your level to pay to depriving you of time with your children. And, be advised, lawyers love it when the other party lies. This is exactly what can be seized upon to win their client's case, sometimes far more dramatically than when people just admit the weaknesses in their positions and move on.

• Rule #10: Don't Tell the Judge it is Obvious She's Already Made Up Her Mind

It does happen that lawyers and parties may find that the Court has prejudged the case before any oral presentation; an example being the circumstances identified above where the lawyer or litigant has lost all credibility. But at other times it can be very difficult to understand why a bench officer may seem to have already decided your case before you open your mouth.  

This is a tough one there may not be much that you can do about it. The advice of judges Curtis and Zisman is to stay calm and focused, and just keep going. Don't respond with something like well, "I can see your honor has already made up your mind," and don't otherwise communicate this with your body language, glares, or tone. This too can be a tall order. But on balance neither the client nor their case can be served in this fashion. For lawyers, my experience is that clients better appreciate the fact that you remained professional rather than snotty with the judge, because they will watch in real panic as their spokesperson begins to lose his or her poise. Similarly, they will know you did everything you could where you don't pour accelerant on the fire.

Judges Curtis and Zisman suggest that lawyers and parties need to know, under such circumstances, when to fold. They also need to know how to protect the record - that is what is said on the record that is recorded by the court reporter. As with the rude and abrasive judge discussed below, a good record for an appeal may be your only hope especially in jurisdictions that video or audio record the hearing, since tones of voice and sarcasm are often lost in a written hearing transcript. And, beware, I once had this happen with an extremely difficult Juvenile Court Judge (retired some years now) and so made a request for the written transcript (which was all that was available), and when I received it I found that major portions had been edited out entirely. Obviously the judge had instructed the court reporter to falsify the transcript, but how was I to prove it? I did manage to get a Writ of Mandate on appeal that removed the judge from future hearings in the case, and then won it in front of a much better judge at trial. BTW, proof that a judge has doctored the hearing transcript would almost certainly result in judicial discipline if proved, but that is can of worms I do not recommend since if your attack on the court fails that judge might actually make it their mission to ruin an attorney or their case.

• Rule #11: Don't Duke it Out With the Rude and Abrasive Judge

Unfortunately I witness this more than I care to admit as an observer at courthouses, although very rarely in my cases these days and one possible reason is that I usually know when to shut up. Judges Curtis and Zisman state "Some judges are rude, aggressive, even abusive, for no apparent reason, or at least none that justifies this behaviour. It is extremely important for the lawyer (or the party) to be calm, and to remain calm, polite, [and] focused." I quote them directly to reinforce that I am not one lawyer griping about judges; similarly, I have friends who are retired bench officers and they will admit that such conduct occurs, and even that at times they regrettably engaged in it. 

The goal of lawyers in such situations is, above all, to defuse the situation. This may seem an impossible task, particularly when it is our job to protect our clients. If the behavior is really so over the top that our clients are being abused we must object to such behavior.

All I can recommend to nonlawyers is that they not get sucked into such exchanges with the court, but that at the same time they politely and firmly stand their ground.

• Rule #12: Ideas for Coping With Judges Who Do Not Know Family Law

California matrimonial law is immensely complicated. Many lawyers who regularly practice in family court really have little clue what they are doing, in part because the simpler contests arise over and over again and many lawyers learn enough to deal with these simple situations but would be highly stressed on more complicated situations. Likewise, many family court lawyers have very little actual trial or even deposition experience. They don't know how to cross-examine witnesses. They only have a glancing familiarity with rules of evidence. Some of these lawyers actually go on to become judges. Others may be quite skilled in the criminal arena, for instance, where they were once prosecutors or public defenders. These judges were once real trial lawyers, but that doesn't mean they understand family law. Others may have been quite senior civil litigators who nonetheless rarely if ever handled these types of cases. 

Curtis and Zisman point out that this situation is actually more easily remedied than some of the others discussed here. They suggest that particularly when you know that a bench officer is not overly familiar with this area, that you adjust your presentation to ensure that you covering the basics. State what you are asking for, identify any statutory authority, and discuss the legal standards that apply. One of the reasons I blog so much is to popularize information to empower nonlawyers. Lawyers have lots of legal treatises to subscribe to and review (when they bother); the public generally does not have these so nearly accessible. I hope this website aids you. However, please remember, my blogs and articles are intended merely to be educational and it is impossible for me to guarantee their accuracy under any fact pattern. You have to do your own work and draw your own conclusions.

• Rule #13: What to Do With the Judge Who Hates Family Law

This is usually a function of judges who don't know family law although as you might suspect, a jurist who hates family law is likely not going to bother to learn it. The best way to overcome this problem is to be polite, be brief, and educate the court about what you want and why you are entitled to it. If you have no idea as to either, the judge who hates family law may become an abusive judge as well. Politely and firmly resist being rushed. But get your points in clearly.

• Rule #14: Cite Recent Authority Whenever Possible

Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S.

Marriage of Howell (May 24, 2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1062

• that Pamela entered the agreement voluntarily
• Pamela was capable of understanding the admonition to obtain her own attorney
• she had sufficient time to do so
• at a minimum she could have inquired into the cost of retaining counsel but didn't
• the premarital agreement was twelve pages long, not particularly complex, involved a small estate, made full disclosure, and basically sought to maintain the parties' separate property interests
• she was fluent in English
• she was employed in the field of bookkeeping, which involves the keeping of finances
• under either parties' version, she had at least 14 days prior to the wedding to consider the agreement
• there was no evidence of duress - it was presented to her at least four months prior to the wedding; indeed, she'd provided her own financial information some five months earlier
• given that Michael had been twice divorced, it was reasonable that he would have raised the request for a prenup much earlier than admitted by Pamela, which was way before the parties began to plan for a wedding
• she had mental capacity and there was no evidence of trick or deception
• there was no evidence the agreement was unconscionable when signed

Nonetheless, because the Court believed that FC section 1612 had to be applied retroactively it declined to enforce the waiver and ordered Michael to pay spousal support of $1,015 per month as temporary support, and then $1,659/month until further of court. It ordered Michael to contribute $10,000 to Pamela's attorney fees per Family Code section 2030. Michael appealed the support ruling but not the attorney fees' order.

Justice Benke of the the Fourth District reversed the trial court's determination that FC § 1612 could be applied retroactively. The Court decided that the California legislature must have intended otherwise because (a) there was no express retroactivity provision contained in the statute itself, (b) there was nothing in the legislative history to suggest the legislature so intended; and (c) the addition of the requirement of independent counsel added in 2002 constituted a material change in prior law and to apply it retroactively would upset the expectations of parties to a contract based upon the state of the prior law by imposing a new duty (to obtain counsel) that hadn't existed earlier.

Ironically, it wasn't until 2000 that the California Supreme Court first declared that a waiver of spousal support did not per se violate public policy (IRMO Pendleton and Fireman, 24 Cal.4th 39). Up to that point it was an open question in California whether premarital agreements could ever be enforced as to support waivers.

The Howell trial court had been careful to lay the groundwork in its factual findings to support a knowing and intelligent waiver by Pamela, but for the reach of the 2002 amendments to FC section 1612. Without retro application, there was sufficient evidence in the record to enforce the waiver. Pamela's lack of independent counsel in a pre-2002 prenup was just one of several factors that a court needs to consider in answering whether a support waiver is enforceable in a pre-UPAA agreement.

The appellate court ruled:

"In light of the trial court's findings, which are supported by ample evidence in the record, and based on the law as it existed at the time the parties executed their premarital agreement, we conclude on this record that Pamela, despite not having independent counsel at the time she executed that agreement, knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to spousal support in that agreement."

This prenup was executed in January, 1999, at a time when most family law attorneys anticipated that premarital waivers of spousal support would one day be upheld as enforceable, but had no idea when and under what conditions. Prenuptial agreements used to be viewed with great suspicion by the Courts under the assumption that they were 'promotive of divorce.' The law has radically shifted since then, as has the legislative and public sentiment. Many people - and evidently Michael in this case - who have prior marriages and children won't get married without one. In that sense they may actually serve to promote marriage.

I find one of the most interesting facts of this case to be the evident simplicity of this particularly premarital agreement. Rarely have I seen a prenup agreement that is only twelve pages long. We lawyers tend to make them quite complicated, partly out of fear of committing malpractice in this area of the law; we may want to reconsider this strategy. The Howell decision, which would have had a different outcome if the agreement had been executed after the enactment of the 2002 amendments to FC § 1612, expresses a major new judicial attitude that support waivers in premarital agreements are to be enforced when they are not unconscionable at the time they are signed, or under current 1612 at the time a party seeks to enforce them. It may serve people to reduce them to their bare essence rather than elongating them. An agreement that is 50 pages long may seem incomprehensible to most nonlawyers.

By the way, prenups that don't mention spousal support will be much more easily enforced. While it is possible for a court to strike only the spousal support language in agreements that contain them, it is also possible the entire agreement could be stricken if the waiver is rejected depending upon how interrelated various provisions are.

For those contemplating drafting or signing a prenup it remains very difficult to predict whether they will be enforced under the circumstances of a contemporary divorce or legal separation. Section 1612(c) reads:

"(c) Any provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support, including, but not limited to, a waiver of it, is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement of the spousal support provision is sought was not represented by independent counsel at the time the agreement containing the provision was signed, or if the provision regarding spousal support is unconscionable at the time of enforcement. An otherwise unenforceable provision in a premarital agreement regarding spousal support may not become enforceable solely because the party against whom enforcement is sought was represented by independent counsel." [Emphasis added].

We await further appellate rulings to determine what the bounds of "unconscionab[ility] at the time of enforcement" are. This is where drafting these agreements is especially tricky, and requires great skill. Don't believe that support waivers will always be enforced, particularly where they are blanket waivers (as opposed to limiting spousal support rights by duration, amount, or future circumstances at time of enforcement).

In the meantime, as to this decision, it appears that Pamela's side threw all the standard objections at the trial court that one would expect where there is a challenge to a prenup (wedding already planned, embarrassment and cost, duress, lack of understanding, no independent review and Michael didn't offer to pay for her to get one), and they didn't stick. She has to repay all the alimony she received, plus Michael's costs on appeal. 

T.W. Arnold, C.F.L.S.

Q.  I'm separated from my ex-husband, and we are in the process of a divorce. He has asked me to file jointly on a 2010 return, and I am wondering if this is a good idea. Any suggestions?

Trudy

• Exclusive residence possession (kick out orders) [FC §6321]
• Ensuring the other party has limited access to children  [FC §3044]
• Making their own spousal support claims seem more meritorious [FC §4320(i)]
• Anticipating and cutting off an anticipated spousal support request from a lower earner spouse [FC §§ 4320(i) and 4325]

To be fair to judges, these cases are hard to evaluate. The California legislature has set a very low standard of proof and hasn't cleared up inadequacies, ambiguities, and contradictions within our own Family Code statutory scheme and so a default strategy has been assumed that it is appropriate to treat DV offenders, once a finding has been made, quite harshly (a good example of this is that the statutes below reference FC § 6211, when domestic violence is not really defined anywhere in the California Family Code). There are few appellate decisions that guide trial courts, and the ones that exist are based upon bad facts at least as far as the alleged perpetrator is concerned in the sense that the DV offenses were serious. There is no good appellate court case yet on behalf of an alleged abuser who committed a relatively minor infraction (i.e., damage to property with no physical threats or violence), and none that speak to mitigating circumstances.

I want to be very clear that I abhor domestic violence. But I abhor manipulative litigation strategies just as much - because I believe that domestic violence comes in many forms, and that abusing the system to gain power in legal proceedings is also exactly the type of violence that people, possibly like you, should be protected against. The problem for judges is that it is hard to spot, and making mistakes can result in deaths.

So this is where you are:

California Family Code section 4325 provides:

    "(a) In any proceeding for dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for an act of domestic violence perpetrated by one spouse against the other spouse entered by the court within five years prior to the filing of the dissolution proceeding, or at any time thereafter, there shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that any award of temporary or permanent spousal support to the abusive spouse otherwise awardable pursuant to the standards of this part should not be made.

    (b) The court may consider documented evidence of a convicted spouse's history as a victim of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, perpetrated by the other spouse, or any other factors the court deems just and equitable, as conditions for rebutting this presumption.

    (c) The rebuttable presumption created in this section may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence."

Hence, in the event of a criminal conviction of DV within five years there is a rebuttable presumption of no support, period. However, notice that rebutting this is by the same standard that the judge remarked to you about when he/she issued the restraining orders - in other words, "more probable than not." One hopes that judges apply the same standards to each question they face.

Family Code section 4320(i), regarding post-judgment spousal support, is being interpreted by courts as applying to temporary support order applications as well. It reads:

    "In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances:

    * * * (i) Documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.

    * * * (m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with Section 4325."

4320(i) does not require evidence of any kind of conviction, although of course that would be relevant - and it cuts both ways: It gives the court discretion to award more spousal support just as well as giving the court to deny spousal support, upon "[d]ocumented evidence." Subsection (m) just restates 4325.

Hence, whether a presumption against spousal support attaches per 4325 or is just in the judge's mind under 4320(i), what you need to present is evidence that will overcome the presumption of 4325. This means: Why should the court not follow the legislative directive that presumes you are not entitled to spousal support? There is no case yet that gives trial courts any guidance on this subject (i.e., "what needs to be proved?"), and it will take a dedicated judge who is deeply passionate about the law - and the proper facts - to turn the populist pendulum that is still in reactive mode to the deplorable sins that true DV generates.

I recommend the following arguments for rebutting the presumption, as applicable:

• Assuming that you had a criminal conviction, argue that you served your time
• Assuming that you were ordered to complete a 52-week batterer's program, argue that you complied
• If you have a long term marriage, i.e., for more than 10 years point that out
• Did your Wife allege a single incident or a pattern of incidents? One of the thorny problems concerning domestic violence restraining orders is that so many different types of conduct, ranging from merely annoying to life threatening, can give rise to them. What your wife alleged in terms of the apparent seriousness (or lack of injury) of your offense might mitigate in your favor by a preponderance of the evidence when balanced against your need for support and all other relevant circumstances considered together
• If there is evidence that you and your wife were mutual combatants at any time, i.e., that (as with too many families) you both behaved badly, present that evidence
• Remind the court that at worst you have the same burden to justify support now as your wife had to justify DV orders then
• Point out that you have been deprived of your livelihood by reason of your Wife's conduct, and that she is, as you say, in control of not only your properties, your joint funds, but also your tools
• Demonstrate that your spouse took control of all the assets, even before the DV situation erupted, not to attack the prior court ruling (which your present judge will always assume was valid and binding), and that she has maintained this control to such an extent such that you have been entirely deprived of your community property entitlements (in breach of fiduciary duties owing you from her) but also that you have been deprived of the very items that would allow you to be self-supporting. Where DV is indeed trumped up, the reporting party tends to behave in predictably controlling ways. Point this out together with any relevant conduct on the part of your spouse - has she met her sua sponte disclosure obligations? Has she ruined your credit by not paying some of property creditors that you are obligated on? Has she changed  your mailing address so that you didn't receive information that might impact your livelihood?
• I cannot overstate that the likelihood is that only a breach, or the substantial appearance thereof, of fiduciary duties on the part of your spouse will meet your burden. Fiduciary duties and alleged spousal abuse are linked at the hip....
• Remind the court more than once that you have met your own burden of proof by the same standard that allowed you to get into this mess
• Request an evidentiary hearing to establish all of the foregoing. Remember Family Code section 217! 

This is a difficult situation. We need a good appellate decision on it, or some legislative guidance.

As I come up with other ideas I will come back and supplement this article.

• the court
• the party's accountant
• some other financial consultant providing assistance with the case
• anybody else the court specifically approves

    "(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. 

Q.    My husband has not updated his I & E for six months.  I know he is not reporting his income fairly.  How do I buy time so the Judge doesn't decide my support rights based upon outdated information?

A.  So here is a secret tip for my blog readers.  FL-150 Income and Expense Declarations (the I & E you reference) must be updated every 90 days in order to be current.

After some continuances on any support application, whether child or spousal support, these declarations become 'stale.'  Whether you need to stall for time or just want an honest representation from the other party, it is essential that all information be "current".

California Rule of Court, Rule 5.128(a) states as follows:  "'Current" is defined as being completed within the past three months providing no facts have changed. Those forms must be sufficiently completed to allow determination of the issue."

Any competent judge will listen to your argument that 'facts have changed' and require the other party to update their information. 

If you cite this rule you will impress them with your devotion to the law! 

You are entitled to a continuance (which you should use well, since it may be the last one).  Now may be the time to hire a lawyer....

Good luck!

One problem is timing - if you file an OSC then the clerk sets the hearing date, which in most jurisdictions will be about the same time as your form interrogatory answers are due - and you can expect your ex to toy with you and so you may not get useful answers within the 30 days after you propound them.  When interrogatories are served by mail, they are due 35 days after mailed, plus the responding party can mail the responses and so this adds another 5 days. 

His answers may come in after the time your Reply to any Responsive Declaration must be filed and served, so you can't bring the quality (or lack thereof) or information contained in the responses to the judge's attention in a procedurally correct fashion.  I usually go with a Notice of Motion format where I want some discovery completed before the hearing - and set the date 60 to 75 days out to give time for the other side to have a reasonable opportunity to have gotten it done and to appear unreasonable or obstructionist if they have not. 

It never hurts to send out a set of form interrogatories because at least you can complain about the other party's failure/refusal to comply with their discovery obligations, which may win you a continuance or some bias against the ex. 

However, form interrogatories are extremely limited in their usefulness except when seeking general information in the course of a dissolution or legal separation action.  A better or additional practice would be to use a demand for production instead of or in addition to form rogs, or possibly special interrogatories if you can draft them properly.  You can use a Notice to Appear and Produce Documents at the hearing, assuming  you are looking for specific records.  I don't have that form up on my website and I'm not sure if there is a Judicial Council form for it.  Subpoenas to third parties can be useful in small jurisdictions particularly when those records won't be lost by the clerk's office, but third parties often ignore them and judges usually don't grant continuances based upon the lack of a response (for subpoean's, always demand that the custodian of records actually appear on the date and at the time specified rather than giving them the option of not appearing).

If you had a lawyer and if a lot of money was involved, you might consider a deposition.  They require only 10 day's personal service when the Notice is served personally, unless they include a document production request.  C.C.P. § 2025.270.

Finally, you might hit the "Other" box on the FL-300 and FL-310 application forms and specifically ask the Court to allow you to complete specific discovery before your application is heard on its merits, as in "I request an order permitting me to complete the following discovery (state it, but make the discovery as short and pin-pointed as you can) before this application is decided by the Court."

How this goes for you depends a lot on the personality of the judge and their custom and practices in managing their calendar.  If you have a reasonable and narrow discovery request, no good judge will preclude you from exercising these rights.

Finally, be careful not to draft your application as a sort of disguised motion for reconsideration.  If the Court feels you are just trying to take another bite of the apple from a recent hearing, unless you have material new evidence that wasn't disclosed by the other party you may not get much traction.

One more thing - I am assuming this set aside is a post-judgment application.  If you are in the middle of a dissolution, legal separation, or paternity action and no final judgment has been entered then you are free to do discovery and then file the motion afterwards or do both concurrently.  On the other hand, if there has already been a judgment and the set aside deals with an order that came as a result of a post-judgment motion either of you filed, then one route is follow my recommendations above.

Thurman W. Arnold III
225 S. Civic Drive
Suite 1-3
Palm Springs, CA  92262

760-320-7915
760-320-0725 (fax)

SBN:  107101

Website:  http://www.ThurmanArnold.com

Q.  If my wife is living with a male renter, and I suspect they are boyfriend-girlfriend, does this affect the amount of spousal and child support that I have to pay?


A.  The supported party's cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex gives rise to a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof of decreased need for spousal support. FC § 4323(a)(1).  It has no impact on child support obligations, however.

FC § 4323 states:

As stated in Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 238 Cal.Rptr. 12, the policy underlying section 4323 [former Civil Code section 4801.5]

Schroeder involved a post judgment modification of a permanent support order by the payor, not an initial pendente lite request by the supported spouse. The evidence was the former wife had been living with a man of the opposite sex for 18 months, that he didn’t pay rent, that he was regularly employed, that he did not contribute to utilities, but that he did contribute to joint vacations. The appellate court found those facts to strongly suggest a cohabitation. Even then, the issue on remand was not a termination of the support obligation but a determination of the value of the benefits incurred by the former wife which might reduce her needs.

Cohabitation has been loosely defined as not necessarily holding oneself out to be Husband and Wife, but is more than a simple roommate or "boarding arrangement." There must be a showing of a sexual, romantic or at least a "homemaker-companion" relationship. Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 CA3d 1367, 263 CR 243.

Marriage of Geraci (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1278 reversed a trial court failure to consider the effect of an admitted cohabitation lasting several years with the following comments:

* * *

In Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893,117 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 there were two permanent support modification hearings filed by the payor husband, one held in 1997 and the second in 2000. At the 1997 hearing the evidence was that the Wife was sharing expenses and living full time at a residence with a man described as a ‘roommate.’ The Bower court noted that the Husband had been wise in not appealing that order. However, by the time of the second application over three years later in 2000, there was evidence that she was sharing at least one bank account with her "roommate," and she even stipulated she was cohabitating.

Under those circumstances, together with evidence of an increased income from her employment, it was not an abuse of discretion to reduce the Wife’s spousal support and then terminate it at the end of one year.

Bower and those cases cited herein regarding cohabitation are dealing with modifications of Permanent Spousal Support orders. They all are based upon the "two can live more cheaply than one" theory or upon actual expenses of the supported party being regularly paid for by the cohabitant beyond loans and gifts. There is no reported case that upholds a trial court refusal to provide spousal support at the temporary hearing stage.  However, I suspect most courts will apply the presumption there as well.

The philosophy underlying the cohabitation statute is that parties who share a household and live in a meretricious relationship should not benefit by continuing to receive spousal support without consideration of the reduced need this sharing produces.

Finding cohabitation just allows for the aid of a statutory presumption to assist in the presentation of factual evidence. The effect is the same without the presumption even for mere roommates, as those contributions to the obligee's living expenses may also support a factual finding sufficient to modify spousal support since rent is income.

Nonetheless, cohabitation is offensive to some judges and they be willing to terminate the spousal support obligation instead of merely reducing it.

Note that once you prove a cohabitation the burden of proof shifts to the supported party to show that they still need support. That is their problem, not yours.  Nonetheless, if you can show a substantial reduction or the end of any need for alimony you would be well advised to present that evidence.

Finally, you are not entitled to know the income of the other party as new-mate income cannot be considered by the Courts. 

For domestic partnerships, even though the statute speaks in terms of opposite sex couples it is highly unlikely that a trial court would not reduce or terminate partner support with a same-sex couple where male former partner is cohabiting with a male and so on.  Since 2005 the California Family Code is to be interpreted as applying evening to same sex couples.

If a homosexual (as opposed to bi-sexual male) is now living with a female should the opposite sex presumption be applied?  The answer would seem to turn on whether the relationship is romantic and/or intimite.  Similarly, if a former wife is now living with a female roommate and it can be established that relationship is intimate, then the same reasoning as in the above cases will likely apply.  We await appellate court pronouncements on these interesting questions.

• The parties expressly agreed in writing to the contrary [FC §2641(e)]; or
• The contributions were for ordinary living expenses that would be incurred regardless of whether the spouse attended school, stayed home, or worked [Marriage of Watt (1989) 214 CA3d 340, 354].

If the loan is still outstanding at the time of dissolution, the balance is not divided but is instead assigned to the party who was educated or trained, except when the parties expressly agreed in writing to the contrary. [FC §2641(b)(2) (e).]

Nonetheless, the Court may reduce or modify the reimbursement and assignment of educational loans to the extent circumstances render such a disposition unjust, including the following [FC §2641(c)]:

• When the community substantially benefited from the education, training, or loan incurred for the education or training of the party. There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the community has not substantially benefited from community contributions to the education or training made fewer than 10 years before the commencement of the proceeding. On the other hand, it is presumed that the community substantially benefited from community contributions to the education or training made more than 10 years before the commencement of the proceeding.
• The education or training received by the party is offset by the education or training received by the other party for which community contributions have been made.
• The education or training enables the party receiving the education or training to engage in gainful employment that substantially reduces the need of the party for support that would otherwise be required.

Professional licenses and education are not "property" that can be divided in divorce or legal separation in California.  Reimbursement for community contributions and assignment of loans under FC §2641 is the exclusive remedy of the community or a party for education or training costs and any resulting enhancement of a person's earning capacity.

However, importantly, the Court should consider the effect of the education, training, or enhancement, or the amount reimbursed, on the circumstances of the parties in ordering permanent spousal support pursuant to Family Code section 4320(b). [FC §2641(d).]

Q.  My wife and I were married for 14 years.  We have two children, aged 11 and 13.  We are both in our early 40's.  My wife has a college degree, but quit working shortly before our first child was born.  I am a doctor, and she was a nurse at the local hospital before she quit.  Our divorce is not final.  I think she should be able to support herself once she gets some updated training, although I don't object to supporting our children.  She says she won't work until until our youngest child finishes high school.  What should I ask the judge to do and what should I expect to limit my spousal support exposure?

By the way, this is exactly why you should want mediation rather than a court judgment.  IMHO.  Mediation takes the future into consideration, and creates a safe container for the parties to talk about it!

Thurman Arnold
http://www.DesertDivorceandFamilyLawyer.com

• If you can, try to research CCP § 1008, including looking at some legal treatise or the reported appellate decisions that mention it
• New or different facts don't generally include things you forgot to mention, unless you have some really credible explanation of why you forgot
• You must explain to the Court what you learned, how and when you learned it, why you didn't learn it earlier, and why these new or different facts matter enough that the Court should render a different outcome.  If the other party withheld facts that you became aware of only after the hearing, you need to describe your reasonable diligence in having attempted to first get all the facts
• New facts are not the same as different facts.  Be specific
• Telling the judge you just think she was wrong is rarely helpful - judges know they will be wrong some of the time, and they are trained as much to just make a decision as to get it right (clearly they want to get it right).  Most of us don't like being told we are wrong and that is rarely a useful persuasive tool.  Instead, focus on the justice or injustice of the situation and be humble
• Explaining that you made a mistake without more is also risky, because lawyers and parties do make mistakes in presenting their cases but the law favors finality in decision-making.  Your  mistake needs to have been a reasonable one. 
• Always consider combining your reconsideration request with a request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473, which is a very important statute that covers relief from orders or judgments that result from your inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or reasonable neglect

In your situation the question will be:  If you knew 10 days before the hearing that your time had been cut back, why didn't you mention it?  If you did mention it, then the Court considered your evidence and ruled against you, so this would not be new information. 

Also, how different would the outcome have been if the Court had considered or known of the cut backs in your work?  For instance, if those cut backs are partial and your income is 15% less than the Court supposed, this may not seem so important to the Judge that she thinks she needs to correct the unfairness of the result.  If it is 40% less, she might.  There are no hard and fast rules that can be applied with consistency.

It is quite common for clients to wind up hiring attorneys after they attempted to handle their case on their own, and it blew up at the hearing, and now they need desperately to get more or better information in front of the judge.  It is very difficult to "un-ring the bell." 

When these things happen they are a good lesson of why the adversarial court process is to be avoided whenever possible, and of the importance of finding and listening to a competent lawyer early on in your case.

Q.  How is child support calculated in California?  I have heard about "Guideline Support" but am wondering what this means?

A.  In 1993 California adopted a Statewide Uniform Guideline to come into compliance with a federal mandate.  (Family Code section 4050).  This followed wide variability of orders and a prior failed attempt to ensure predictability.  Its effect was to greatly increase the monies available to children and to begin to end gender bias in assessing support.    Family Code section 4052 requires California court Commissioners to adhere to the uniform guidelines and to "depart from the guideline only in special circumstances...." 

Family Code section 4053 lists principles to be followed by the Court in implementing the guidelines.  This is a statute worth reviewing, and using to remind family court judges of what our State child support policy is.  These include the directives that:

(1)  A parent's first and principal obligation is to support their minor children "according ot the parent's circumstances and station in life."

(2)  Both parents are mutually responsible.

(3)  The guideline must take into account each parent's actual income and the level of responsibility for the children.

(4)  "Each parent should pay for the support of the children or according to his or her ability."

(5)  The interests of children are the State's top priority.

(6)  Children should share in the standard of living of both parents.  Child support may therefore be appropriately used to increase the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.

(7)  Disparities of living standards in both homes, particularly where both parents have high levels of responsibility for raising the children, should be minimized through the use of guideline child support orders.

(8)  A parent having primary physical responsibility for the children (a term that is nowhere defined in the Family Code) is presumed to be contributing a significant portion of their available financial resources to the support of these children.

(9)  The guideline is intended to encourage settlement between parents by creating predictability.

(10)  The guideline is presumptively correct in all cases, and ony in special circumstance should child support orders be less than guideline.

(11)  Child support orders must reflect the greater standard of living and costs of living in California as opposed to other states. 

California Family Code section 4055 sets forth the formula for assessing guideline support.  Don't even bother to look at it, you will need to be a mathematician or logics teacher to understand or explain it.  While gross income numbers (or imputed income) are used, the guideline tax effects this income so that net income is generally what is determinative - however, this complicates doing the math.  The percentage of parent's income allocated to children is called the "K" factor, and this number moves depending upon how many children there are.  It assumes, for instance, that 26% of the joint income of most families is spent on families with one child, and 60% where there are three children.  Forturnately these calculations are done for us through computer programs.  The most common are the Dissomaster and Xspouse, which I will explain further in another blog.  Riverside County in Indio utilizes the Xspouse.  The Xspouse is a spin off from the people who devised the Dissomaster, after they had a parting of the ways.

Child support always takes precedence over spousal support, or personal expenses.  Relative timeshare between the parents is a major factor in using the formula - the higher the noncustodial parent's timeshare, the less they pay. 

Unfortunately this means in practice that there is much legal wrestling between parents about timeshare that has nothing to do with the children's best interests but often everything to do with economic warfare.  I write about this in separate articles detailing Collaborative Law processes where we attempt to refocus parents on best interests rather than legal rights (per the guideline formula, for instance) so that primary parent's (often mothers) will give up more custodial time and fathers will pay a little more for this time and then actually undertake using that time (as opposed to having it on paper in a court order, but generally ignoring the increased responsibilities).  Please see this link to our Collaborative Divorce Team.

Importantly, even when courts order child or spousal support to women, studies have shown that most children who are entitled to child support from their fathers never receive it (Huang, Mincy, and Garfinkel, 2005). There may be a number of reasons for this. One determinant of fathers meeting these obligations is their ability to pay.  Researchers have found that when child support obligations exceed 35% of a father' sincome, he is less like to comply (Meyer and Barfeld, 1996).  Lower earner fathers are generally required to pay a higher proportion of their income in child support in child support than higher earners, which pressures the poorest members of our society (Huang, et al., 2005).

Women in heterosexual relationships, as single parents (or child-caretaking partners), are at greatest risk of becoming systemically impoverished (Strong, et al., 2008). Following divorce, women are principally responsible for both child-rearing and their own economic support. At a minimum a woman may suffer a significant decrease in her financial condition. Studies have shown that a single mother's income may decrease by twenty-seven percent or more.  (Peterson, 1996; Smock, 1993).  [Please contact me if you want the actual citations to these studies].

These realities may or may not interest you.  They do affect children and parents in very deep ways, nonetheless.

In any event, now that you have the background I will provide more detailed information on how the Xspouse and Dissomaster programs work in practice very soon.  Try using our search engine at the upper right corner of any page on this site and you will find those articles when they are up.

TWA

Thurman Arnold is a child support attorney practicing in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including the cities ranging from Blythe, Indio, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Joshua Tree, Hemet, San Bernardino and Riverside, CA.

Q.  I remarried in August, 2009, and my new wife is a doctor.  She has one child from her prior marriage and I have two.  I am still paying my former wife alimony and child support even though the kids we have together live at our home 40% of the time.  I have been hit hard by the economy and we largely depend upon my wife's medical income to make ends meet.  Now my ex is threatening to take me back to court to increase my support based upon my new wife's income, while my own income is down from when the court last decided it.  My new wife is upset at the idea that my ex can learn anything about the medical practice or income.  What should I do?

A.  If there has been a material decrease in your income since the time of your last order, you may safely file a support modification motion to lower your child support and to lower or possibly terminate your spousal support.  Whether that is advisable based upon your numbers has nothing to do with your new mate's income, and should not cause you to hesitate - but again, it does depend on the actual respective numbers between you and Wife 1, which you did not provide me.  You also need not worry about W1 filing a motion to increase (you can't stop her, but she will not win based on W2's earnings).  Maybe you should give her this link so she will think twice.

California law is quite clear that new mate income cannot generally be considered against you in ordering or modifying child or spousal support.  The controlling California Family statute is section 4057.5.

In the normal situation, Family Code section 4057.5 leaves the Court no discretion to consider your new wife's earnings, period.  You do not need to report those earnings on your FL-150 (Income and Expense Declaration). This is a statement of California legislative policy effective in 1993 when this section was added to the Family Code.  This is true for both spousal and child support.

However, section 4057.5 does contain an exception for the "extraordinary case" which the statute makes clear is intended to address situations where "where excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award" or where "a parent ... voluntarily or intentionally quits work or reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income."  Even if the court were to find a severe hardship on the children of marriage number one, it would be required not to impose a severe hardship on your wife's child by reallocating her income to you for purposes of supporting your two children. 

In practice, so far, Courts almost never find facts sufficient overcome this clear statutory prohibition.  So far there is no published California appellate decision defining these extraordinary circumstances.  No doubt one day someone will so abuse this protection and hide behind it that we will get a reported decision that fleshs out how bad someone needs to behave before the protection is lost.  But "extraordinary" means really extraordinary.  In the average case, your new Wife has nothing to be concerned about. 

With regard to attorneys fee awards, however, there is authority for an argument that new mate income may be considered in granting or denying an attorney fee request, but the odds are against a judge doing that.

Incidentally, this section also applies to income from nonmarital partners as well as new spouses.  In one reported case (IRMO Loh), a trial court was reversed for inceasing dad's child support obligation after the mother produced photos of the father's "lifetyle" to show imputed nontaxable income in the form of his new girlfriend's contributions to him, since she paid for all his toys. 

The new mate question is a subset of the "imputed income" situations where a father or mother may quit work or reduce hours because they are relying on their new mate to contribute the difference.  That is not likely going to be an extraordinary case, but  W1 can separately seek to impute income to you on the basis that you have a higher earning capacity than you are exercising.  Earning capacity and imputed income is a blog for another day.  Also, I will mention here that another argument exists in favor of W1 that has nothing to do with the right to obtain the records or income of W2:  Equalizing the lifestyle's of the two households where yours is rich and grandiose and W1 is impoverished (an extreme example) pursuant to FC section 4057(b)(4).

The tax returns are privileged as they relate to your new wife's medical practice.  For instance, if she is a medical corporation (which I recommend be set up), she will almost never be forced to divulge those records.  Even as to your joint returns, you may be entitled to redact the information concerning your new spouse or have the Court review them in camera (meaning they are not turned over to the other side).  Your former mate is entitled to see your side of the tax returns, however, and they are not insulated from scrutiny simply because you filed joint with the Doctor Wife.  If you don't file jointly, your former wife will almost certainly never get her hands on your new wife's Married Filing Separately (MFS) returns.  Structuring things this way may or may not be advisable and you should consult a tax accountant.

An interesting twist here is that because you marry a higher, wealthy earner, your taxes actually increase because under federal IRS (and the California FTB), you are responsible for one-half of your new mate's income - and this is true even if you don't file jointly.  One case (County of Tulare vs. Campbell) has held that this additional tax you become liable for can form the basis for a reduction in your support because you have less net income available for support after the tax hit is deducted.  Hence, based on these tax consequences you may have an additional argument for decreased support - although a Court may try to deny you some discretionary offset to even the score since this feels a bit unfair to the spouse who is  primarily supporting the children and so lessen the downward modification.

The take-away:  So long as you are not playing games, have not intentionally reduced your income by relying upon your new mate's income, and there is no really extraordinary difference in the two households, your new wife's income is just not relevant and so it is protected.

Q. Can child support orders be made retroactive in a court proceeding?

A. Except when the county has paid benefits, or possibly where a third party has provided necessaries like food, shelter, or clothing for the benefit of a child living with you under certain circumstances, the earliest a support order can be made effective is the date any initial pleading is filed in a court proceeding.  FC Section 4009.

However, if you were not served with the papers within 90 days of that initial filing, support can only be ordered retroactive to the date a motion seeking support was filed.

Most judges will order support retroactive to the first or the fifteenth day of the month.  This means that if you file for support on April 2nd, your order may only go back to April 15 but if you filed March 27th, your order would become effective on April 1.  You should time your filing to maximize retroactivity.

To the extent your partner has contributed monies to your support voluntarily before the order becomes effective, they will usually receive a credit off-set against the support award for the time period in question (i.e., if support commences April 1, they will not likely receive credits for payments made prior to that time).  These payments do not need to be paid to you directly for the credit to apply, as where a mortgage or rent payment is made.

Q.  I have two children from a previous marriage.  I remarried two years ago, and my new spouse earns $8,500 month.  While my hours have been reduced during this recession and my monthly gross averages $3,500.  The ex is threatening to take me back to Court to increase child support based upon my new mate's income.  Can she do this?

A.  Of course ex-spouses can always take the other back to court, but that doesn't mean they will win.  We call these support modification proceedings.  In order to obtain a new order, she must prove there has been some material change of circumstances with regard to her needs, the childrens' needs, or your ability to pay a greater sum in support.

The key California statute on when and how new mate income can be considered is Family Code section 4057.5.  The basic rule is that courts cannot consider new mate or nonmarital partner income in the context of making child support or support spousal orders.  This means as a general proposition that your new wife's income of $8,500/month is not to be inputted into the support guideline formulas. 

There are two exceptions where new mate income may need to be disclosed and where it can be considered in setting child support:  1) Where there are "extraordinary circumstances" that would cause the exclusion of this income to create an extreme or severe hardship to a supported child.  However, if this hardship is shown, the court must first consider the effect of inclusion of new mate income on any other children including the new mate's children, and so that their interests trump the hardship to the child for which support orders are being sought.  2) By marrying somebody with high earnings, a spouse will pick up additional taxes based upon the other's income.  Since as far as the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is concerned, you are liable under community property laws for one-half of your new mate's income, regardless whether you file jointly, the added tax consequences upon this additional income can actually be the basis for a downward decrease in child support (County of Tulare v. Campbell) since there is less after tax income available to you from which to pay support.

There are very few reported California appellate decision on new mate income or which explain how FC section 4057.5 is to be applied.  In Marriage of Loh (93 CA4 325) a mother/former spouse convinced a trial court, based upon photos of the father's extravagant lifestyle (homes, cars, etc.) which were funded by his girlfriend's income and assets, to impute income to him for purposes of basing a child support award.  The appellate court reversed, stating "Evidence of lifestyle, particularly a lifestyle subsidized by a new 'nonmarital partner', is not a cheap substitute for proper discovery of income reported on tax returns."

In a very recent appellate decision (Marriage of Knowles (Oct. 2009) 178 CA4 35) a trial court was reversed after it accepted the former wife's argument that the community property income and assets of both he and his new wife should be used to determine his income available for support.  The trial court's mistake was include the half that belonged to the new wife, although it could have included just the half that belong to him.   There was no evidence of extreme hardship that justified considering the new mate's half. 

We’ve waited a long time for another case dealing with consideration of new-mate income under Fam C §4057.5. One of the few cases that has, In re Marriage of Wood (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1059 is cited here, but it came down in 1995. Neither the statute nor the cases provide any definitive answer regarding what actually constitutes either an “extraordinary case” or an “extreme and severe hardship,” although Wood seems to say that new-mate income can be considered where one of the parents is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Rather than arguing for NMI (new mate income), a party seeking to have income assigned to a person who has remarried or is living with a nonmarital partner may find more success by arguing that income should be imputed to that spouse on the basis that they have an earning capacity which is not being realized.  For instance, if because your new spouse had sufficient income you chose to quit work or take a lower paying job it might appear you are shirking your support responsibilities.  Rather than charging you with NMI, a trial court could find that you had the ability to earn X dollars a month and so charge you for this phantom income by making that the basis for a support award.  Then, the community property (including your new mate's share) could be tapped to satisfy this obligation.

Incidentally, a California prenup can be an effective way to limit this exposure.

Q.  What rights do I have to permanent spousal support?

A.  Permanent spousal support is not usually "permanent," although it can be in cases of very long marriages.  Lawyers and judges also refer to it as post-judgment spousal support, alimony, judgment spousal support, or long term support.

Unlike temporary spousal support, long term spousal support is only issued after a final judgment of Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation.  It is equally available to domestic partners.  Also unlike temporary support, it is not based on any computer formula or state or county guideline, but must be determined and fixed depending on the facts of every individual case.  If long term support is important to your future wellbeing, you are going to need an experienced support attorney.

There are several very important rules to keep in mind.  First, a marriage in California which lasts more than 10 years (defined as the time between date of marriage and physical separation), is "long term" marriage.  The general rule is that in marriages which are not long term, spousal support should not be payable for more than one-half the length of marriage - or to put in differently, the law presumes that the recipient spouse should be rehabilitated and so become self-supporting in a period equal to 1/2 the marriage.  However, this presumption becomes less important in cases involving older couples, especially where people can not be realistically expected to re-enter the work force, in cases where there children who remain minors, or where the party asking for support has a debilitating disease or disability.

There is no magic ratio for how long a former spouse might be ordered to pay long term support.  Each case depends upon its own facts, the quality of your attorney, and the attitudes of the family court judge.  Even in cases of long term marriages, the support obligation typically will end at some point in time.  However, if usually will not end on its own - meaning that when a trial court orders long term support it will reserve jurisdiction to continue to extent it, until some time when a party petitions the court to terminate support and a judge finally says "enough is a enough." 

Imputed income is often an important argument in long term support marriages, where one party convinces the court that the other party is shirking or failing to genuinely try to become self-supporting.  It is sometimes necessary to have the supported spouse evaluated by a vocational rehabilitation expert. 

There are four components to an award of of permanent support:  1) Amount; 2) duration; 3) substantive increases or decreases over time; and 4) jurisdictional step downs and ultimately a termination date.

Second, Family Code section 4320 is a critical support statute.  I have provided a link and uploaded it so that you may read it.  Essentially it sets forth all the factors that the court must consider in setting post-judgment support, and you will see that it is not an exhaustive list and the court can consider anything else it deems important to the decision.  Support factors include the extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the marital standard of living established during the marriage, considering:  a) the marketable skills of the supported party, the job market for those skills, the time and expense required to train that party including education and b) the extent to which the supported party's present or future income earning ability is impaired by periods of unemployment or were incurred during the marriage to permit that party to devote time to domestic duties.

Another factor is whether the supported party contributed to the attainment of an education, training, license, career, or position by the supporting party. 

Another factor is the ability of the supporting party to pay, taking in account that person's earning capacity, income, and assets and standard of living.

Another very important support consideration is the needs of each party - including both. 

Another factor is the obligations and assets of each spouse, including the separate property which each has or gained upon the dissolution.

Another is the ability of the supported spouse to engage in gainful employment without interfering with the needs of dependent children in their custody.

The age and health of the parties is critical in some cases.  65 years of age is the presumed retirement age for adults today, and courts cannot order a person to continue to be employed beyond that age - but, if they make that choice, their income can be considered.

A documented history of domestic violence can affect the right to receive support or the obligation to pay it.

The tax consequences between the parties must be considered.

And, basically, as I said, any other specific facts that trend one way or another.

The three most common factors are the marital standard of living (MSOL), need and ability to pay, and the assets the parties end up with upon divorcing.

Courts cannot order lump sums for support.  Spousal support is generally taxable to the recipient and deductible to the payor, but there are very specific IRS requirements that must be met for this to actually be so.

Courts are required to state their findings on each relevant issue in writing.  In practice though, most people settle their divorce cases by way of settlement agreements.  Unfortunately, lawyers often leave out these findings so that when a court is asked, down the road, by the payor to terminate or decrease support, or by the payee to increase it, there is no map for the court to use to base its modification findings on.

If support is an issue for you either way, please hire a competent lawyer.  There are many attorneys moving into family law from civil practices who are clueless about these things.  Caveat emptor!

Q.  How is temporary spousal support calculated in California?

A.  In order to be entitled to spousal support, parties must be married or be registered domestic partners.  Spousal support (which is not usually referred to as "alimony" in California) is available in dissolution proceedings, actions for legal separation, and in connection with domestic violence applications. 

Spousal support orders may be temporary, or they be what is called permanent.  Different rules apply to how temporary support is figured than to permanent or long-term support.  I address permanent spousal separately.

Temporary spousal support is designed to preserve the status quo pending a final judgment.  Family Code section 3600 provides that during the pendency for dissolution of marriage or legal separation or in any proceeding where there is at issue the support of a minor child, the court may order the husband or wife to pay any amount that is necessary for the support of the husband and wife (subject to limitations contained in FC section 4320 and FC section 4325).  Again, parties dissolving domestic partnerships may also be awarded support.

Temporary spousal support has nothing to do with the length of the marriage.  Courts look at what the spending pattern was pre-separation and issues a spousal support award based upon need.  If there isn't enough money on the basis of need, then an amount is ordered based upon the higher earner's ability to pay.  A party seeking spousal support isn't deprived on the right to receive support even if they have income - the question is the relative income circumstances of the two parties.

Most California counties have formulas that determine temporary spousal support, but the two most important are Santa Clara and Alameda counties.  Essentially the spousal support formula for Santa Clara County - which is the dominant one - is as follows:  From any amount which is not allocated to child support, take 40% from the net income of the payor spouse, less 50% from the net income of the recipient spouse.  The resulting number is the temporary spousal support.  You do not need to have children to be entitled to receive spousal support.

As a practical matter, courts typically use one of two computer programs that generate these numbers:  Either the Dissomaster or Xspouse.  The Indio courts use Xspouse and the Santa Clara guidelines.

Into one of these programs are inputted the respective gross incomes of the parties.  If there are children of the parties, the custodial timeshare in percentages is inputted (because only a party who has physical custody for more than 50% of the year can claim the tax benefits of HH/MLA or head of household status, the programs require one to be considered to have 51% even in true joint custody arrangements). 

Only certain expenses matter for purposes of temporary support in California.  What doesn't matter at all is most personal expenses (like mortgage payments, utilities, debt).  This effectively ignores the entire debt structure of the parties at time of separation.  Health insurance, union dues, and mandatory contributions to retirement (i.e., typically not IRA contributions), and obligations existing to other minor children living in one party's home, or as to which an actual court order requires they make support payments, are also entered.  The support program 'tax effects' these numbers and figures out the net incomes of the parties.  It renders a number that tells the Court how much the higher earning spouse must pay for purposes of a court order.

Since the court determines the support obligation some weeks after a request for support is made (by way of Motion for Order to Show Cause application), it typically makes the support order retroactive to the date of the filing for the request.  Most courts order support payable one-half on the first and fifteenth of the month.  For this reason, if you file for support on the 5th day of the month, the court will not make support retroactive to the 1st but will start of the obligation on the 15th day of the month.

This might sound like temporary spousal support is easy to fix and who needs a lawyer?  This is not at all the case.  The final support numbers depend upon how much income the Court is attributing to each party.  Each is required to submit before the hearing an FL-150 Income and Expense Declaration.

For instance:  A husband's (and wife's) income numbers are usually but not always based upon historical earnings, and the California judicial council form (FL-150) requires both to set forth there total gross for the past 12 months and also the past month.  The legal assumption is that historical earnings are a reliable guide to future earnings, but this may not be at all true.  Especially in today's economy, historical earnings may not be indicative of what the income stream will be going forward.  This information needs to be credibly presented to the Court.

In cases where one party is a self-employed spouse, their net pre-tax earnings must be determined after deducting business expenses.  This is a common and complex area of dispute, because what is deductible for purposes of Schedule C accompanying a tax return according to the federal government is in no way binding upon California courts for purposes of figuring support.  If somebody works from home and charges part of the mortgage expense as a business deduction, that expense may be added back into the income stream as being available for support.

Another support battleground often involves imputed income.  What if one party refuses to work, or insists on working at a lower paying job?  Perhaps a support recipient believes they will get more money from their spouse if they have no job but if they tried to get one, they could?  What if one party claims that they aren't working and that no jobs are available?  Imputing income cuts both ways, and is extremely sophisticated. I will address another blog to it.

Incidentally, while only temporary alimony is calculated in this way, child support is always figured in this manner regardless whether there is a spousal support obligation.

Q.:  Is overtime a factor in considering child support?