July 1, 2009

Michael Jackson's Will Names Diana Ross as Back-up Guardian of his Children

While millions of people around the world continue to mourn the death of Michael Jackson, the self-pronounced King of Pop, in Los Angeles, CA last week, a battle is being waged over the distribution of his estate and potentially over guardianship of the superstar's children by Motown diva Diana Ross.

Jackson's will, which was filed today in a Los Angeles County court, leaves his entire estate to a family trust in which he named his own mother, Katherine Jackson, as a beneficiary and as the guardian of his three children. You can read the full story at Fox News.

jackowacko.jpg
Notably missing from the will was Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, his father and his siblings. Katherine Jackson on Monday was granted temporary guardianship of Jackson's children, and his will makes it expressly clear that he desired for his mother to become their permanent legal guardian. In the alternative, he named Diana Ross as back-up guardian.

Complicating matters further is the fact that there has been a flurry of litigation in the California case because it was unclear at first whether Jackson even had a will or died intestate.

To this point, Rowe (the eldest children's mother) has not stepped forward to assert any parental rights. Jackson's youngest child was carried to term by a surrogate who was not aware that she was carrying the King of Pop's child.

The discussions, arguments and watercooler conversations about Michael Jackson and the impact he made in the world (good and bad) will be debated for many, many years to come. Point in fact, we still debate "Fat Elvis" vs. "Skinny Elvis" to this day.

However, what I suggest that you take from the situation is the importance in California of having a will that concisely, clearly and accurately reflects your wishes for how your children and estate are dealt with after your death. In the Jackson case, it is very likely that Jackson's children will remain with his mother according to his wishes, although if Rowe asserts parental rights in the case there will likely be lengthy litigation before it is resolved.

Just as importantly is that someone in your family or circle of friends knows that you have a will AND knows where to find it. The best-written will is completely useless if it remains anonymously hidden away. Oftentimes, the party (also called the "testator" during life and the "decedent" after death) will keep the will on file with the attorney who drafted the document. More and more, testators are filing their wills with a "will registry." A will registry, such as U.S. Living Will Registry, is a service that keeps a detailed computer record of wills, powers of attorney and so forth and is easily searchable at the time of death. Think of it as a bridal registry for funerals.

Regardless of which method you choose, you should make certain that when the time comes, your will is known and easily located. Otherwise, decisions about what to do with your children and property will be determined entirely by a stranger wearing a black robe who knows very little about you and your family.

For more information about California family law and estate planning issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

June 25, 2009

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Strip Search of Arizona Middle School Girl

In an 8-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court today held that Arizona school officials who in 2003 strip-searched a 13-year-old girl while looking for prescription medications went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Acting on an unverified tip from another student, and without contacting the young girl's parents, school officials in Safford, Arizona ordered 8th-grader Savana Redding to strip down to her undergarments, and then forced her to expose her breasts and pelvic areas to determine whether she was hiding any ibuprofen pills. No pills of any kind were found.

School officials defended their actions by arguing that the strip search was necessary for student safety, school order and to combat a growing drug problem. However, Redding had never been suspected of having illegal drugs, let alone drugs that posed a great danger to other students or to herself. Moreover, the officials could have confined Redding to the principal's office until one of her parents arrived or even sent her directly home.

"Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution," wrote Justice David Souter for the majority. Had the officials merely searched her backpack, locker or outside clothes, the search would likely have been found legal instead of having been found unconstitutional.

In another part of the ruling, Souter said the school officials themselves who ordered or carried out the search were entitled to immunity from liability because of uncertainty over whether the right had been clearly established at that time. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that privacy parameters had in fact been clearly determined at that time, and that the officials should be liable. Only justice Clarence Thomas disagreed that Redding's rights had been violated.

Redding describes how she felt humiliated and violated by the explicit strip search. She said she was embarrassed, scared and on the verge of crying. As a parent myself, I was outraged when I first read about this story, and would never want my children here in California to ever have to suffer the same indignities as did Redding. I am grateful that the Court applied common sense to this case, understanding that our children are precious resources and that schools should not simply be Constitution-free zones because students are not adults. This is a win for the good guys.

More coverage is available in the NY Times and from Reuters.

For more information about California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

June 24, 2009

Henry VIII Divorce Petition Unveiled

It took nearly 480 years, but Henry VIII's petition to the Vatican for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon has finally been made public. (Compare that to a typical California divorce case where the documents are available to the public almost instantly.) After languishing in a drawer in the Vatican's Secret Archives until the 1920's, an Italian firm has been painstakingly reproducing the letter and now plans to produce 200 of them at a rate of three per month.

henry8.jpgHowever, at a cost of nearly $83,000 (£50,000) per copy, the price of a replica of the ancient parchment remains out of the reach of most ordinary people and be limited to museums and collectors. The parchment contains 81 wax seals and weighs in at 5-1/2 pounds (2.5 kg).

In 1530, members of England's House of Lords sent a parchment to Pope Clement VII in support of his desire for a divorce. At the time, the monarch was obsessed with producing a male heir to the British throne with Anne Boleyn, as he had been unable to do so with his wife. Boleyn was not satisfied with merely being the king's mistress and thus, one of the most famous stories about "the other woman" was born.

In the wake of the Vatican's refusal to grant Henry VIII a divorce, the English king broke with Rome and subsequently installed himself as the leader of the Church of England. To many historians, this is the most defining and important event in English history.

"This is the moment at which England ceases to be a normal European Catholic country and goes off on this strange path that leads it to the Atlantic, to the new world, to Protestantism, to Euro-skepticism," said David Starkey, a British historian and expert in the Tudor family in a recent interview with AP Television News. The story appears in the Associated Press.

For more information about California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

June 23, 2009

Are You Ready for Marriage?

Are you ready for marriage? Is it right for you? Do you know everything you need to know about your partner before you walk down the aisle with him or her?

As a California family law & divorce attorney, I frequently discover that the answer to these questions is a resounding, "NO." Unfortunately, far too many couples don't discover that this is the answer until sometime after the marriage begins to fail.

Of all places, Oprah.com publishes an online relationships column that asks the following questions of those who are considering tying the knot:

1) Why are you getting married?

2) Do you know and trust your partner's personal history?

3) Did you plan your marriage, instead of just your wedding?

4) Are you investing more than you can afford to lose?

5) Have you identified and communicated your needs and expectations?

For those of you who chuckle because it comes from Oprah, I'd suggest you look at these questions and seriously consider them before you make the commitment to share your life, for better or for worse, with your significant other. Trust me, if you're coming to me down the road, it most certainly was because your marriage was "for worse."

For more information about California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

June 22, 2009

What Moms Can Learn from Dads

Fathers who are primary parents find more time for leisure and less time for chores, and overall present their children with a healthier picture of domestic life than do mothers who are primary parents, according to column that appeared in USAToday over the weekend.

Although primary-father households are less common than primary-mother households (fathers typically provide about 40% less child care on a daily basis than mothers, and primary-father households only make up about 20% of families with young children) researchers seem to be learning that fathers tend to do things a little bit differently, and in some cases a little better, than in more traditional families.

According to the columnist, today's fathers are teaching mothers four lessons:

1) It's OK to keep a hand in the workforce.
It doesn't have to be "work or stay home."

2) You don't have to do the laundry. Domestic work
and child care can be negotiated as separate jobs.

3) Parents are people, too. Give yourself permission
to have leisure time.

4) Kids need both parents.


For more information about child custody and visitation or other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

May 26, 2009

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8 Ban on Same-Sex Marriages

The California Supreme Court has upheld the voter-enacted Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages in the state, but at the same time upheld the legality of marriages of same-sex couples who wed prior to the ban.

This decision by the Court virtually guarantees another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in California. Gay activists have indicated they may ask the voters to overturn Proposition 8 as early as next year, while supporters of Proposition 8 have pledged to fight any such efforts.

Opponents of voter-sponsored Proposition 8, including California Attorney General (and perhaps future gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown, had argued that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision because it took away inalienable rights based merely on a majority vote and that the legislature should have been required to place it on the ballot prior to any vote. The California Supreme Court disagreed, voting 6-1 in favor of permitting Proposition 8 to stand.

At the same time, the justices were unanimous in their decision to permit some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. These marriages occurred after the Court's decision in May 2008 to recognize same-sex marriage and prior to the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 by the voters.

Today's LA Times has a detailed story on this issue.

For more information about marriage and other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

April 17, 2009

California Divorce Attorney Cautions Clients About Mortgage Foreclosure and Modification Scams

With the recent news that home foreclosures reached a historic high last month, more and more divorcing Californians are trying to stave off foreclosures and considering whether to apply for mortgage modification.

mortgagemoney.jpgCalifornia has one of the highest default rates for home mortgages in the country, which makes our borrowers ripe targets for many of the scam artists that have popped up over the past few years. As is is typically the case, thousands of people fall victim to mortgage scams before the government becomes aware of the problem and can step in to address it. Fortunately, according to USA Today, both federal and state authorities have recently begun to address the problem and are clamping down on refinancing schemes.

If you find yourself facing an impending balloon payment, interest rate adjustment or even foreclosure, you may still want to consider a mortgage modification. However, it is generally best if you work with an experienced real estate attorney who can walk you through the process and can help you ensure you are working with a legitimate provider and not an unscrupulous thief. While no attorney can guarantee that your home won't ultimately fall victim to foreclosure, you give yourself the best odds when you work with an attorney.

Should you choose to move forward with mortgage modification on your own, pay close attention to the following red flags:

(1) Guarantees to save your home from foreclosure

(2) Unknown telemarketers who cold-call you with promises of saving your home

(3) Companies that ask for sensitive and confidential information over the phone

(4) Demands for large, up-front payments

(5) Promises of making large chunks of your principal "go away"

If you see any of these red flags, or have an uncomfortable feeling that someone is probing you far too extensively, then walk the other direction immediately. We've seen far too many stories of creative identity thieves weaseling their way into borrowers' bank accounts, draining all of the funds, and then disappearing into the night only to attack another unsuspecting victim the next day.


For more information about community property and other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

April 14, 2009

Mel Gibson's California Divorce Could Set Settlement Record

Mel Gibson's wife of 29 years, Robyn, has filed for divorce in California, citing irreconcilable differences. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligence, MSNBC, and other media sources, there are no indications that the couple had a prenuptial agreement.

Under California's community property laws, each spouse is entitled to one-half of all assets acquired during a marriage; that is, from the date of marriage until the date the parties separate. According to People Magazine, Gibson has amassed nearly $1 billion since the couple married in 1980. Accordingly, Robyn Gibson is likely entitled to half of that amount, or close to $500 million.

People reports that this amount will dwarf previous record holders Michael Jordan ($168 million), Neil Diamond ($150 million) and Steven Spielberg ($100 million).

For more information about prenuptial agreements, community property division and other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

April 10, 2009

Don't Fall Behind in Your California Child and Spousal Support Payments

Don't assume you don't have to pay child and/or spousal support just because you were laid off!

Most of here in California are victims of these tough economic times in one way or another. Layoffs and unemployment claims seem to be increasing week after week. If you have been laid off, or if your unemployment benefits have expired, you now face the reality of having to make support payments that were based on your prior level of income, and you may not be able to afford these payments.

What you need to understand is that even if you were laid off, you must continue paying support at the ordered level. stress.jpg You need to immediately request at least a temporary modification from the Court. If you delay, you may very well find yourself falling behind in payments and facing a contempt or collection action by your ex-spouse/other parent. Once the payment due date has occurred, the Court cannot modify the amount payable unless you filed a motion for modification prior to that date. Here's an example:

Mike lives in Monterey, CA and was divorced in Contra Costa County, CA four years ago. He has two daughters and was ordered to pay $750/month in child support, based on his income at the time of $70,000/year. Regrettably, Mike was laid off three months ago and has not made any support payments during that time because he lives only on unemployment benefits. His ex-wife has now brought a Contempt of Court motion against Mike for failure to pay his support, and Mike filed a motion to modify child support in response.

Because Mike waited to seek modification until after he was three months past due, he owes his ex-wife $2,250 ($750 x 3 months). In addition, he may have to pay some of his ex's attorney fees for the cost of bringing the motion. Had Mike filed for a modification of support immediately once he was laid off, the Court would have had the authority to retroactively modify the support payments that were due.

Important Lesson: don't wait until you get behind on your support payments and find them mounting out of control. Take action immediately.

For more information about child support, spousal support and other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

April 7, 2009

Q&A: My Wife Stopped Working During our California Divorce to Avoid Paying Child Support -- What Can I Do?

The Courts generally don't look too kindly on a parent or spouse who quits work to avoid his/her child support obligation, and the Court has the discretion to impute income in that situation.

The burden to support minor children may not fall entirely on one parent. California Family Code §3900 baby_hands.jpgemphasizes that each parent has an equal responsibility for the support of his/her minor children. Parental obligations under the law are specified clearly in California Family Code §4053: (1) A parent’s first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent’s circumstances and station in life. (2) Both parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children. (3) Each parent should pay for the support of children according to his or her ability. It is rare to find a parent who doesn't have some "ability" to support his or her children.

In Re Marriage of Regnery is the landmark case in California that set the standards for how and when the family court court impute, or attribute, income to a parent regardless of his/her actual income. Just recently, the appellate Courts refined the Regnery standard in what is now the preeminent case regarding imputation of income in California: In Re Marriage of Bardzik.

In order to convince the Court that it needs to impute income to the other parent, you will first need to establish for the Court that the parent has the ability to work, and then that the parent has the opportunity to work. This generally involves looking at his/her education, training, certifications, resume, job and income history, etc., and also proving up job openings in the newspapers or some of the well-known online job resources (Monster, CareerBuilder, etc.). If you meet your burden of showing his/her ability and opportunity to work, including the possible income of those opportunities, then the burden shifts to the other parent to prove up why s/he can't do that work.

It's not a fun process, but it's doable. You may want to discuss this in person with a competent family law attorney to ensure you don't miss out on every opportunity to prove your case.

For more information about child support and other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

April 3, 2009

Q&A: Can My Ex-Husband Take our Children and Move Out of California Without My Consent?

The moveaway issue in California family law has been litigated heavily over the past few years. A proposed move in the residence of a child can be the "change in circumstances" required for the Court to revisit and modify child custody.

A 2004 case (In re Marriage of LaMusga) decided by the California Supreme Court refocused the family courts in the state by ordering that they must make a determination about whether or not a child should move out of the area with one of his/her parents based on what is in his/her "best interests."

In a nutshell, if the parent opposing the moveaway can show the Court that there would be a detriment to the child -- e.g. not in the child's "best interests" -- caused by the moveaway (frequently because that parent is highly involved in the child's life, activities, schooling, etc), then the Court arrows.jpgmust use its discretion to arrive at a custodial arrangement that is in the child's "best interests." Keep in mind that the detriment issue is a threshold issue -- that is, the opposing parent must establish there will be a detriment to the child(ren) before the Court will step in and block a moveaway. In other words, there is no "automatic" right for a custodial parent to moveaway with a child. While the primary custodial parent is presumed to have the right to moveaway with children, a finding of "detriment" will block that move until the Court can further examine the issue. In a case where both parents are joint custodial parents, arguably no such presumption exists at all.

In looking at the "best interests," the Court has discretion to look at many factors, and will often times appoint an expert child custody evaluator to investigate the matter and report back to the Court. The Court will usually look at the parent-child relationships and examine how they could be best maintained over a distance. The Court will generally also look at how embedded the children are into their local community -- their friends, family members, education & schooling, extracurricular activities & sports, civic organizations, etc. -- to determine whether or not the same opportunities are available in the new location.

If there is no order prohibiting relocation (or restricting a change in the children's residency) in your custodial orders, then the first move is typically to file a motion with the Court (ex-parte motion if the move is imminent) making the best case you can that there would be a detriment to the children caused by the move and requesting that the Court temporarily block the move until it can determine what is in the children's "best interests." Remember that while the Court has the discretion to block the moveaway of the children, it almost never can block your ex from moving away himself.

To get more than just a general overview of moveaway law, your best bet is to consult with an experienced family law attorney as soon as you can so that you clearly understand what the law can and cannot do in your specific situation, and so that you can put together your game plan on how to oppose and stop your ex's relocation with the children.

Good luck!

For more information about child custody and visitation or other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.

March 30, 2009

California Divorce Lawyer Blog: Family Law News and Help

After being on hiatus for a few months, the California Divorce Lawyer Blog is back with more news, information and resources for your family law matters. In fact, over the past few months, we've received so many questions submitted through our contact form, that I will begin posting many of them as Q&A postings.

Thank you all for your tremendous support over the past year, and I look forward to blawgging with you!

For more information about divorce, child support, custody and visitation, property division or other California family law issues, please contact attorney Gary D. Sparks.