Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B315673
|
Marriage of Belthius
Ex-husband's pension calculations must comport with the stipulated judgment agreed to at separation. |
Family Law |
|
J. Ashmann-Gerst | Feb. 1, 2023 |
H049337
|
Marriage of D.S. & A.S.
When Domestic Violence Restraining order request is based solely on information provided by the party requesting the order, due process requires family courts to conduct a meaningful hearing before issuing the order. |
Family Law |
|
M. Greenwood | Jan. 25, 2023 |
D079123
|
Marriage of Destiny C. and Justin C.
Family Code Section 3044's presumption against awarding custody to abusers only pertains to current abuse--those occurring within five years of the family court's findings, as opposed to five years prior to filing the petition. |
Family Law |
|
W. Dato | Jan. 23, 2023 |
D079801
|
In re Marriage of D.H. and B.G.
In defining a child's "full-time" student status for termination of child support, courts are to consider the school calendar of the school that child attends to make its determination. |
Family Law |
|
M. Buchanan | Jan. 19, 2023 |
B317694
|
Brubaker v. Strum
Request for an order determining support arrearage was not prohibited even though the support obligor's employer was under a wage assignment order. |
Family Law |
|
J. Segal | Jan. 18, 2023 |
B316280
|
Featherstone v. Martinez
Sanctions against party were improper when based on the litigation positions of the party rather than conduct that frustrated the policy of the law to promote settlement. |
Family Law |
|
L. Baker | Dec. 23, 2022 |
E075748
|
Salmon v. Salmon
Statutory prohibition against issuing mutual restraining orders absent detailed findings of fact governed where granting two competing petitions seeking restraining orders would accomplish the same result. |
Family Law |
|
R. Fields | Dec. 8, 2022 |
C095856
|
Modification: Adoption of M.R.
Trial court erroneously failed to make Indian Child Welfare Act findings prior to freeing child from father's custody and control under Probate Code Section 1516.5 and Family Code Section 7822. |
Family Law |
|
E. Duarte | Oct. 28, 2022 |
C095856
|
Adoption of M.R.
Trial court erroneously failed to make Indian Child Welfare Act findings prior to freeing child from father's custody and control under Probate Code Section 1516.5 and Family Code Section 7822. |
Family Law |
|
E. Duarte | Oct. 25, 2022 |
F081092
|
Marriage of Knox
Family court's failure to hear and take under submission wife's request for pendente lite attorney fees on the first day of trial for dissolution of marriage constituted an unreasonable delay. |
Family Law |
|
D. Franson | Sep. 13, 2022 |
E076743
|
Modification: Marriage of Aviles & Vulovic
Wife qualified as a putative spouse because she adequately showed that, at the time she married her husband, she had a good faith belief that her prior divorce was final. |
Family Law |
|
M. Ramirez | Jun. 15, 2022 |
E076743
|
Marriage of Aviles & Vulovic
Wife qualified as a putative spouse because she adequately showed that, at the time she married her husband, she had a good faith belief that her prior divorce was final. |
Family Law |
|
M. Ramirez | Jun. 10, 2022 |
E075103
|
Marriage of Elali & Marchoud
A bigamous foreign marriage violates California public policy and is void under California law. |
Family Law |
|
C. Codrington | Jun. 8, 2022 |
G059108
|
Marriage of Nakamoto and Hsu
In a marriage dissolution, a party is not entitled to attorney fees for over-litigating a trial court case or failing to provide reasonable grounds for a prospective appeal. |
Family Law |
|
E. Moore | Jun. 3, 2022 |
B281051
|
Modification: Marriage of Zucker
Courts may use the time of enforcement or execution of a premarital agreement when determining whether spousal support limitations of premarital agreements executed between 1986 and 2002 are unconscionable. |
Family Law |
|
T. Willhite | Apr. 5, 2022 |
A161921
|
M.S. v. A.S.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by including couple's children in a domestic violence restraining order because there was substantial evidence of good cause supporting children's inclusion in the order. |
Family Law |
|
C. Fujisaki | Apr. 1, 2022 |
A161842
|
Haley v. Antunovich
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a mother to seek employment as in the best interest of the child because substantial evidence supported the seek-work order. |
Family Law |
|
V. Rodriguez | Mar. 30, 2022 |
A161503
|
City and County of San Francisco v. H.H.
A trial court erred by ordering a visitation schedule where child lived with each parent half of the time after finding father's domestic violence triggered the presumption awarding sole custody to mother. |
Family Law |
|
J. Kline | Mar. 22, 2022 |
C092765
|
Adoption of E.B.
Trial court incorrectly applied Family Code Section 7612, which controls disputed parentage claims, to adoption where biological parents agreed to place their child with a third parent while retaining parental rights. |
Family Law |
|
V. Raye | Mar. 18, 2022 |
B310832
|
Ramsden v. Peterson
The trial court properly applied best interests of the child standard and approved parent's move-away request when she showed that changes in circumstances supported that it was in the child's best interests. |
Family Law |
|
M. Tangeman | Mar. 16, 2022 |
D078652
|
Abdelqader v. Abraham
A trial court erred by failing to provide a statement of reasons addressing why the rebuttable presumption, arising in any situation in which a finding of domestic violence has been made, had been rebutted. |
Family Law |
|
R. Huffman | Mar. 11, 2022 |
B281051
|
Marriage of Zucker
Courts may use the time of enforcement or execution of a premarital agreement when determining whether spousal support limitations of premarital agreements executed between 1986 and 2002 are unconscionable. |
Family Law |
|
T. Willhite | Mar. 8, 2022 |
D078643
|
Shenefield v. Shenefield
Under Family Code Section 3111(d), attorneys may be sanctioned for unwarranted disclosure of a confidential custody evaluation. |
Family Law |
|
R. Huffman | Mar. 1, 2022 |
C091168
|
Marriage of Thompson
First in time rule for jurisdiction only applies when court has both in rem and in personam jurisdiction. |
Family Law |
|
W. Murray | Jan. 31, 2022 |
H049128
|
In re M.F.
Statutory prescribed limits for length of foster care must be adhered to, even if duration of reunification services are reduced. |
Family Law |
|
A. Danner | Jan. 24, 2022 |
B307887
|
Marriage of Brubaker and Strum
Trial court erred in concluding that issue preclusion applied when issue heard in family law court differed from issue in trial court regarding a domestic violence restraining order. |
Family Law |
|
J. Segal | Jan. 5, 2022 |
B307255
|
Marriage of Reichental
In a dissolution proceeding, where parties stipulate the appointment of a temporary judge to hear and determine the matter, issuance of a domestic violence restraining order falls within the scope of allowable actions. |
Family Law |
|
K. Yegan | Dec. 30, 2021 |
A161993
|
Modification: C.T. v. K.W.
A mother was eligible for attorneys fees because a child support action and custody action were related actions. |
Family Law |
|
S. Pollak | Dec. 15, 2021 |
A162155
|
Adoption of S.S.
A family law court had jurisdiction to amend adoption orders to include a post adoption contract agreement in the exercise of its equitable powers. |
Family Law |
|
I. Petrou | Dec. 14, 2021 |
B306351
|
Marriage of Kahan and Diamond
When ruling on a request to modify spousal support, the court is not required to articulate how it considered each factor in making its decision. |
Family Law |
|
L. Rubin | Dec. 13, 2021 |