California laws for property division in divorce has undergone significant change over the years. Due to its Spanish roots, California began as a community property state, in which all property acquired during the marriage is part of the community thus subject to equal division in divorce. Divorce in California really took off in 1969 when Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law “no-fault” divorce making California one of the first no-fault divorce states. The new law eliminated the need for couples to articulate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce. In the decades that ensued, almost every state in America would follow California’s lead and enact “no-fault” divorce of its own. This legal transformation would open the floodgates to divorce in the United States. From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled. With the major influx of California divorce came novel legal questions on how to fairly divide property between divorced spouses. The California legislature and judiciary would create new laws to address these issues.

Perhaps the most landmark amendment to the Family Code is the addition of Family Code §2640, which requires reimbursement of a spouse’s traceable separate property contributions towards the acquisition of community property before division can commence. Under this statute, all separate property used to obtain a property with joint and equal ownership is reimbursable separate property. Moreover, Family Code §2640 states that the spouse who made a separate property contribution is entitled to interest-free reimbursement for the down payment, improvements, and principal, but not an ownership interest. This reimbursement also does not include payments towards taxes, insurance, or maintenance.

Prior to the enactment of this statute, the California Supreme Court presumed that any separate property funds (e.g. money acquired before marriage and inheritances) used to purchase an asset during the marriage was presumed to be a “gift” to the community. This presumption, colloquially referred to as the “Lucas Presumption” precluded a spouse from claiming any interest in a community asset regardless of whether the spouse spent much of his own separate property money to purchase it. In most cases today, the Lucas Presumption no longer applies, thanks to the 1984 California Legislature. However, in certain rare cases for property acquired before the statute, the court will use a two-part analysis to determine whether retroactive application of section 2640 violates due process under the Constitution. First: The significance of the state interest served by the law and the importance of the retroactive application of the law to the effectuation of that interest; and Second: The extent of reliance upon the former law, the legitimacy of that reliance, the extent of actions taken on the basis of that reliance, and the extent to which the retroactive application of the new law would disrupt those actions. (In re Marriage of Heikes (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1211, 1219).

even if the property was acquired after 1984 and either party is entitled to reimbursement under section 2640, it is vital that the necessary records are maintained so that a court can trace the funds from the community asset back to all separate funds. Burden of proof and problems arise if the monies were commingled into a joint account. These issues are especially apt in lengthy marriages where a spouse may not have kept a record of his or her separate contributions. As previously explained in other blog posts, the best way to ensure adequate accounting for separate property assets is to proactively keep an inventory of its rents, issues, and profits. In instances where a community asset is purchased with commingled funds it may still be possible to obtain reimbursement under the method of tracing by recapitulation. Under this method, a court may conclude that the asset was purchased with separate funds if the party can prove that all community funds had been exhausted by community expenses at the time of the transaction.

The date of separation has also undergone significant change in California. The date of separation in a California divorce can play a very important role in determining the division of assets and debts. It can be the difference between whether an asset is community or separate property and whether a marriage is of “long duration” or “short” for purposes of determining spousal support. Initially, the rule was that the date of separation occurred when either spouse did not intend to continue the marriage and their conduct was consistent with the complete and final breakdown of the marriage. Then in July 2015, the California Supreme Court abrogated that rule in a decision called Marriage of Davis. This decision created a bright-line rule making physical separation a necessity to separate. This meant that parties who could not afford to live out on their own were precluded from legal separation. Many family law lawyers, judges and the California legislature did not like this decision. Thus, in 2016 Governor Brown signed into law Family Code section 70 defining separation as the date that a complete and final break in the marital relationship has occurred, as evidenced by (1) a spouse’s intent to end the marriage and (2) conduct of the spouse that is consistent with his or her intent to end the marriage. The law requires courts to take into consideration all relevant evidence.

If you are seeking information or counsel regarding estate planning or protecting your property during divorce, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri – we offer free half-hour consultations. We also offer free wills to all of our family law clients during the process of their divorce.

Lastly, 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 detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Establishing paternity can be an overwhelming time for many parents. There are many situations in which a want or need to establish paternity arises from. One example being a child born out of wedlock, or during a time where the two parents were not married. Even if unmarried, the two can sign a voluntary declaration of parentage at the child’s birth in order to identify them as the mother and father. However, in some cases of children born out of wedlock, the mother may even omit adding the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate. When this happens, it is not hopeless to identify and establish a man as the father later on. The man hoping to establish himself as the child’s father, or even the mother, may file a petition with the court for a paternity judgment. There are many reasons why a parent may want to establish paternity.

First, it is usually, but not always, in the child’s best interest to have both a mother and father figure in the child’s life. Studies have shown that a good working relationship between mother and father are vital to a child’s emotional well-being and results in positive relationships and fewer behavioral problems. (41 Fam. Ct. Rev. 354). If the child has gone many years without knowing the identity of his biological father, it may also give him a sense of relief to finally receive this information and a part of his identity he had not known. Second, establishing paternity can hold a father of a child accountable for support, whether it be emotionally or financially. If a father has been resistant to claim a child as his, establishing this paternity judgement can ensure that he is held responsible for his duties as a father. Third, it could allow a father to be present in a child’s life when the mother is resisting. Lastly, it can allow the child to claim inheritances and social security benefits.

To enable a child to reap these benefits, parentage must be established. As noted above, there a few methods to do so. One option is to sign a voluntary declaration establishing parentage. Usually at birth of the child, the person responsible for registering live births shall offer to the mother, and to the person identified by the mother as being the child’s father, a voluntary declaration of paternity for the two to sign. (Cal Fam Code § 7571). This declaration will hold the same weight as if you had gotten a judgment of parentage in court. (Cal Fam Code § 7573). If signing a declaration at birth was not an option for you or was not done, a voluntary agreement can still be drafted and signed establishing you both as parents later on. The declaration would need to be executed on a form developed by the Department of Child Support Services in consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the California Family Support Council, and child support advocacy groups. (Cal Fam Code § 7574). It will then be signed by a judge and filed in the court.

To get a paternity judgment by a judge, you would need to file a parentage case with your local superior court. Only the child, the child’s biological mother, the presumed father of the child, an adoption agency who has the child, or a prospective adoptive parent may file an action for paternity. (Cal Fam Code § 7630). A presumed father is one who was married to the child’s biological mother when the child was born, there was a valid attempt to try to marry before the child’s birth, they married or attempted to marry after the child’s birth, or one who receives the child into his home as if the child is his. (Cal Fam Code § 7611). There are many forms to file to open a parentage case with the court, so it is advised that you reach out to an experienced attorney to help you. Once forms are filed, the other parent has thirty days to respond to the petition or else it is defaulted. If the other side does respond within that thirty days, they will likely contest the petition and ask the parties to submit to a blood test.

The court may, on its own or because of a motion to the court, order a mother, child, and alleged father to submit to genetic testing to establish paternity. (Cal Fam Code § 7551). So that both parties can feel confident about the results of the test will be accurate, it is required that the genetics testing is done by a laboratory approved by the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Cal Fam Code § 7552). If it is determined that he is not the child’s biological father, then the court will resolve the matter accordingly. (Cal Fam Code § 7554). If, however, it is determined that the man is indeed the child’s father then he will have the same obligations and responsibilities to the child as if the issue of parentage was not even raised.

If you have an issue concerning issues of paternity or your rights as a parent, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. We offer a free half-hour consultations.

Lastly, 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 detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

For many parents, the topic of vaccinations is a very personal one. There are strong stances on both sides of the vaccination divide, with some believing that vaccinations should be mandatory, and others believing that the decision to vaccinate should be their own. While the issue most commonly arises between parents and educational institutions, it is becoming more common for it to arise between separated parents. Although California has yet to decide a case involving violation of a court order for vaccinations, a recent Michigan case sheds some light on how California might rule on this issue.

In general, California has strict vaccination laws. California, along with the other 49 states, requires that school-age children be vaccinated against childhood diseases as a condition to attending school and day care programs. While some states do recognize your right to not vaccinate on religious grounds, and others recognize your right to not vaccinate on moral or philosophical grounds, California is not one of those states. The only permitted exemptions in California are for valid medical reasons. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, to qualify under a medical exemption, a parent or guardian must submit a written statement from a licensed physician (M.D. or D.O.) which confirms that the physical condition or medical circumstances of the child is such that the required immunization is not indicated, states which vaccines are being exempted, whether the medical exemption is permanent or temporary, and the expiration date, if the exemption is temporary.

The list of recognized medical exemptions in California is very narrow. You may find it at the National Vaccine Information Center website. It includes Autoimmune Conditions, Hyper immune conditions, Immune cancers, Immune deficiencies, Genetic SNP’s associated with increased vaccine reaction risk, and vaccine reactions. However, the state will not provide an exemption for ADD, behavior issues, psychiatric diseases, Asperger’s, Autism, neurologic diseases, hypertension, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, or adult onset diabetes.

Similarly, California’s contempt statutes contemplate strict compliance with a court order. Under California Civil Procedure Code sections 1218 and 1219, a party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order, is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties. Under California Penal Code section 166, contempt of court refers to any behavior that is disrespectful to the court process, including but not limited to, willfully disobeying a court order. The consequences of this may include jail time and/or fines.

The recent Michigan case involved a mother who was ordered, through a custody agreement, to maintain the child’s vaccinations. Despite this, the mother told the judge that she was personally opposed to vaccinating her son, and thus would not comply with the court order. This resulted in the mother being held in contempt of court, and the judge ordering her to spend 7 days in jail. The issue at hand was not specifically focused on the child being vaccinated or not, but rather on the mother’s willful disobedience of a clear order to maintain her child’s vaccinations.

The issue of complying with a court order is one that California is clear on. As such, if you are ordered by a court to maintain your child’s vaccinations, you must comply, or risk being held in contempt. However, in the event you are held in contempt of court, you do maintain your due process protections in the contempt proceeding. Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, which means you have the right to notice, the opportunity to be heard, the right to counsel, the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), and in some cases, the right to a jury trial.

If you have an issue concerning your rights regarding vaccinations, compliance with court orders, or contempt of court, please contact one of the experienced attorneys at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri. We offer a free half-hour consultations.

Lastly, 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 detail general legal issues, it is not legal advice. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.