Blog
Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation
Contact Us
LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI
1871 The Alameda, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 553-0801 | Fax: (408) 553-0807 | Email: contact@lpeplaw.com
LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI
Phone: (408) 553-0801
Fax: (408) 553-0807
Email: contact@lpeplaw.com
1871 The Alameda, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95126
Located in San Jose, Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri handles matters for clients in northern California, specifically San Jose and Silicon Valley. Our services are available to anyone within the following counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, and San Francisco. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.
MAKE A PAYMENT BY SCANNING THE QR CODE BELOW:
DISCLAIMER
This web site is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Nothing in the site is to be considered as either creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri or as rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri Web site without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.
© 2024 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
What is Income for Purposes of Support?
/in Family Law /by Gina PolicastriIn a case of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s ruling that two benefits received by a member of the Navy – “basic allowing for housing” (BAH) and “basic allowance for subsistence” (BAS) – can be considered income for purposes of child and spousal support. Father argued that inclusion of these benefits was improper because under federal law they are not taxable income and the court violated the federal preemption doctrine by holding that they were income for purposes of support. The trial court disagreed, stating that “(i)f it looks like income, it is income no matter how it’s paid to you.” In affirming the trial court, the panel cited and quoted from sister state cases on this issue, which have held that “(t)he nontaxable status of military allowances does not suggest Congress had any preemptive intent with regard to either child or spousal support” and “the protection of certain military allowances from wage garnishment for support arrearages does not indicate Congress intended to preempt state family support law.” It concluded that “the doctrine is inapplicable, as under United State Supreme Court authority family law support matters are within the province of state law unless ‘Congress has positively required by direct enactment’ that state law be pre-empted.’ We join in courts across the nation in holding that such allowances of are included in a party’s gross income for purpose of support when state law encompasses them.”
For more information about California support issues, please contact us. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Grandparent Visitation Rights
/in Family Law /by David PattonA grandparent may seek visitation rights even if there is no parental custody case pending in court. A court’s jurisdiction over this issue may be invoked in a separate action brought on the grandparent’s behalf. In order for grandparents to seek visitation privileges, they must first meet a two-part test.
First, the grandparent must have a preexisting relationship with the grandchild so that visitation would be in the child’s best interest. Second, the court must balance the child’s interest in grandparent visitation with the parents’ rights to exercise parental authority.
For more information about grandparent rights, please contact us. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Courts Must Consider the Child’s Best Interest When Making Custody & Visitation Decisions
/in Family Law /by Mitchell EhrlichWhen a Santa Clara County Family Court Judge makes a decision regarding custody and/or visitation of a child, the court is required to make a determination based on that child’s best interest. When making the “best interest” determination, the court can consider a wide variety of relevant factors. The court must, however, consider the child’s health, safety, welfare, any history of physical abuse, history of parental drug or alcohol abuse, stability and continuity of the child’s environment, as well as other factors.
When a court considers allegations of abuse in order to determine appropriate custody/visitation orders, the court will look at a parent’s history of domestic violence against the child or another person. “Abuse,” in this context, is defined by the California Family Code as “intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or sexual assault, or placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, herself or another.”
A significant component of the “best interests” analysis includes the goal of protecting a stable custody schedule. When examining this factor, the court will look at any harm that may be caused by disrupting established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker.
Before a court considers allegations of drug or alcohol abuse by a parent in a child custody/visitation determination, the court may require independent corroboration. Independent corroboration may include reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, or other organizations. In addition, after following strict legal guidelines, a court may order a parent to undergo testing for illegal drugs or alcohol abuse.
For more information about all of the factors that a court will consider in determining what is in a child’s best interest in a child custody case, please contact our San Jose child custody attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
What are the Legal Implications of Conceiving a Child Through Artificial Insemination?
/in Family Law /by Gina PolicastriThe California Family Code provides that if a woman is artificially inseminated with semen of a man who is not her husband, then her husband is treated as the legal father of the child conceived. However, the insemination must have been conducted under the supervision of a licensed physician and surgeon and with the consent of the woman’s husband.
Likewise, under the California Family Code, a donor who provides semen to a licensed physician or to a licensed sperm bank for use in artificial insemination or in virtro fertilization of a woman (who is not the donor’s wife) is treated as if he was not the natural father of the child.
If you are considering trying to conceive a child through artificial insemination, it is important to realize that these rules only apply where the donor semen was provided to a licensed physician and the insemination was done under the supervision of the licensed physician. If the semen is provided informally, the California law presumption does not apply. This means that the semen donor can later establish his paternity of the child.
For more information about how to protect your parental rights, please contact us. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Huffington Post Article Argues for Increased Accountability for Parents Misusing Child Support Funds
/in Family Law /by David PattonAn article published by Huffington Post recounts the importance of holding parents accountable for misusing child support funds. The article discusses the issues arising when a parent uses child support money (paid by an ex-spouse) as his or her own personal money rather than using the funds to directly to support the child. The article details that some states set a limit on the amount of child support that can be awarded to an ex-spouse. This limit is intended to ensure the child’s necessities are taken care of while making sure the parent receiving the payment does not receive a monetary windfall. California does not have such a limit in place.
The author of the Huffington Post article makes a very interesting point: California child support statutes are missing the requirement that child support money should be used solely to care for the child. In addition, the author suggests that a procedure should be put in place that allows for oversight of this process so that parents would be much less inclined to misuse child support funds. For the full article, please click here.
For more information about California child support, please contact Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results. While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.