It is important to understand that attorneys have experience in the courtroom and know what Judges want to see and hear. They can anticipate opposing arguments and games the other side may play. Attorneys know and can argue the laws regarding custody, support, property division, etc. that the Judges decide by.

Attorneys can also represent you in court and can speak on your behalf with the court and the opposing party. Attorneys can give you legal advice and guidance, even if you only hire a consulting attorney part-time on the side on an as-needed basis. At the very least, I firmly believe that every party to a family law matter should have a consulting attorney who can answer questions and review documents to ensure that his/her rights are being protected and that he/she is not being taken advantage of by the other side.

Sure, many of these so-called divorce services and document preparers can fill out court forms, but they are not permitted to tell you "how" to fill them out or "why" to fill them out a certain way. They are prohibited from giving you legal advice, interpreting documents, or warning you of the pitfalls or consequences of your choices. They cannot tell you what information to insert in your documents; in fact, they are not supposed to even select the documents you want them to prepare for you. They cannot appear in court, explain to the Judge why you did or didn't do something. And they are not trained in the law nor in court procedures, and are not licensed to practice law in California. And most importantly, if you are given bad advice and decide to follow that advice, you have to live with the outcome with little or no recourse.

Several years ago, independent paralegals in California actually lost the ability to call themselves "paralegals" in part because of concerns about how many of them crossed the line between document preparation and legal advice. As a result, these independent operators now must call themselves "legal document preparers."

Would you allow your child to ride in a car with a driver who had never driven before, or fly on an airplane with a non-pilot at the controls? Then why risk custody, support or property, or worse, by not hiring an attorney? Family law cases affect more aspects of clients' lives than any other area of law. In a typical family law case, the court is making orders about your children, your income, your home, your bank accounts, your pets, your personal property, your retirement accounts, your business, your credit cards... and the list goes on. These are all important issues.

You may decide to hire a legal document preparer to assist you with your court papers because you have no other financial option. I can certainly understand that. We are living in unprecedented economic times, and the downturn has affected almost all of us, myself included. However, it would be in your best interest -- and I strongly recommend -- that you find a way to make arrangements with a family law attorney to spend even just an hour or two with you to make sure you are doing everything possible to protect yourself, your children and your family moving forward.

To download and play the podcast, click here.

That may be because more people in the Northeast delay their marriages until their education is complete. Delayed, or later, marriages have traditionally been viewed as more likely to last longer. That's a link making itself known more favorably in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York than in places like Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia, where divorce rates are well above the norm, according to the data released today from the 2009 American Community Survey.

Sociologists have found that factors such as age, income, religion and education can all play key roles in timing and success of marriage. Diana Elliott, a Census Bureau family demographer, said the relatively high percentage of people who pursue degrees in the Northeast is presumably a primary reason for lower marriage and divorce rates. "In the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces," she said.

At the same time that marriages have been postponed, there has been a surge in cohabitation among unmarried couples across the United States. The new census report does not address those relationships and their outcomes.

Prenuptial agreements, as unromantic as they may sound, can eliminate disputes at the time of divorce if the marriage ultimately fails. The agreement can serve as a snapshot inventory of assets and debts owned or incurred by each spouse prior to marriage. It can convey interest in property between the parties, or dictate that neither spouse will acquire interest in each other's property.

In community property states like California, the prenuptial agreement can even permit parties to opt out of the community property system, allowing each spouse to earn income and obtain assets independently of the other during marriage and requiring express and definitive steps for the parties to obtain property jointly. The agreement can also limit or eliminate spousal support (alimony) for one or both spouses.

Of course, prenuptial agreements can potentially be unfair to one spouse or the other, which is why states like California have overhauled their domestic relations statutes in recent years. In California, for example, the party receiving a proposed premarital agreement must be given at least seven days to read, review and contemplate the agreement prior to signature. The law also requires that each party have their own, independent counsel (with only a very strict, limited exception), and that the parties provide each other with "full and fair" disclosure of their financial circumstances.

Despite all of the things a couple can do with a prenuptial agreement, there are limits. For example, the agreement cannot limit or restrict a parent's rights to custody, visitation or child support. Additionally, although an agreement can limit or eliminate a party's right to spousal support, the agreement itself is subject to scrutiny by the Courts and examined to ensure it is not "unconscionable," or unreasonably unfair to one party. If a Court decides that the agreement rises to the level of being unconscionable, it may redline the provision(s) it finds excessively unfair. In other words, depending on the circumstances of the couple, the Court may nevertheless award some property interest or spousal support to a party who waived his/her rights to that property or support in the prenuptial agreement.

A couple contemplating a premarital agreement should have a frank discussion about such an agreement at least six months in advance of the anticipated wedding. Not only will this allow plenty of time for the agreement itself to be drafted, reviewed and revised (in and of itself a process that will take several months), but it will allow the parties to put the business of the agreement behind them and then focus on what should presumably be one of the happiest days of their lives.

From KGO: Ronn Owens has had the top rated program with KGO Newstalk 810 for over 35 years. In that time he has had thousands of guests in the hot seat, including President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Steve Martin, Condoleezza Rice, Benjamin Netanyahu, John McCain, Eliot Spitzer, Joe Montana, Tony Bennett, Jimmy Carter, Willie Mays, Secretaries of State, CIA Directors and community leaders.
As a versatile talk host and author, Ronn covers everything from politics to pop culture, and his show has been called the "ultimate town hall meeting." Similar to KGO's listenership, Ronn is unpredictable and has long been the voice of reason in the Bay Area, balancing issues so that listeners can make up their own minds. As Ronn says, "I’m just like everybody else – I look at the world around me and comment on it."

Over the years, Ronn has won numerous awards and was inducted into the Bay Area Radio Hall of Fame in December 2007. The National Association of Broadcasters presented him with the prestigious Marconi Award for Major Market Personality of the Year Award in 2003 and again in 2010. Talkers Magazine named Ronn one of the Top 25 Greatest Radio Talk Show Hosts of All Time, ranking him 13th and the top local personality in the country. His first book, "Voice of Reason: Why the Left and Right are Wrong," was published in 2004.

Appearing on the Today show, Anthony Morelli said that although he took down the blog as ordered, he is appealing the order on the grounds that it violates his First Amendment rights. Judge Diane Gibbons ordered the blog to be taken down, citing the emotional damage it was capable of inflicting on the parties' children. Morelli claims that the blog is therapeutic in nature, and that the children can be protected by the content provided that the parents exercise control of the children's computer viewing habits. The question facing the appellate court is whether Morelli's right to free speech outweighs the potential harmful effect of his inflammatory comments on the children.

I happen to be a big defender of First Amendment rights, and of free speech in particular. For the most part, provided that the speech does not incite violence, I will almost always stand up for the rights of individuals to say and express what is on their minds. And although I am torn by a case like this, I still ultimately come down on Morelli's right to say and express his feelings, regardless of how distasteful they may be. However, I clearly am not the appellate court in this matter.

At the same time, and although I would defend Morelli's free speech rights, I would also advocate that the family court judge who adjudicates custody in the case should consider Morelli's actions in determining what is in the best interests of his children. Although it may be legal (or should be) for him to post the comments, I believe the family court would be well-within its discretion to determine he is not exercising sound judgment and make the corresponding custodial orders.

I'm not aware of a case in California (yet) involving any such court order. In fact, in my experience, family court judges frequently refuse to grant restrictions on speech in divorce cases. At the same time, we frequently see orders whereby the parties are compelled not to make disparaging remarks about the other parent within the children's earshot, or prohibitions on discussing the adult litigation matters with the children other than in a cursory, age-appropriate manner (and without the gory details). Whether such an order would eventually include the censorship of an inflammatory blog has yet to be determined.

THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. SPARKS
2890 North Main Street, Suite 205
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Our Solano County office is still at the same location and available by appointment:

THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. SPARKS
918 Merchant Street, Suite C
Vacaville, CA 95688

We've only moved across the freeway, but the new space is larger and more efficient. We're still in semi-move-in mode, but should be completely finished within the next two weeks or so. After that, be sure to stop in for a visit!

Thanks to all our clients for their patience and support over the past two years, and we look forward to continuing to provide outstanding legal services for many years as we keep growing and building our practice.

This, of course, brings up the conflict we run into in family law cases -- the authority of the California family court to make orders with respect to marital property, versus the power of the Federal court to control assets contained in a bankruptcy petition. In virtually every case, when the Federal court receives a petition for bankruptcy, an automatic "stay" (or "time out") is placed on the ability of the California state court to make any orders with respect to property and/or debt contained within the petition. This same stay is the same order that stops the creditors' calls to debtors.

Whenever federal law conflicts with California law regarding the same issue, the outcome is generally always the same -- the federal law supersedes California law. This comes from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. However, Ms. McCourt's attorneys are considering asking the family court to order the sale of the parent company that owns/controls the Dodgers, and apparently believe that if a potential buyer comes along who wants to buy the parent company, that the bankruptcy court might just permit the transaction.

The McCourt divorce has given us many juicy stories over the past year, including the takeover of the Dodgers baseball franchise by Major League Baseball. Stay tuned for how this latest development proceeds.

Pop diva Christina Aguilera is divorcing her husband, Jordan Bratman. However, she apparently finds herself living in a luxury hotel in Los Angeles nowadays, according to the Daily News. It's not that she doesn't have a house of her own. Far from it. The problem is that her soon-to-be ex-husband still lives there.

Under California community property law, a home acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. Even if the home was acquired in one spouse's name, both spouses have an equal right to possession and occupancy of the home during the divorce proceedings. Only when a divorce becomes final, and the property disposed of, does the obligation to move out apply.

There are exceptions, of course. One spouse might successfully convince the Court to make a pre-trial determination that a house is separate property and not community, in which case an early kick-out order may apply. Or, there might be domestic violence or other harassment which could lead to an order for a spouse to vacate the home (along with a restraining order).

However, there is no law in California that permits one spouse to simply just order or demand that the other spouse vacate the house just because the parties are divorcing, no matter how bad the situation might be.

Seasoned California family law attorneys know that this is the case; however, I have been bombarded in the past two years with motions from opposing parties and their attorneys requesting exclusive use and occupancy of a home without any kind of a showing that there is any violence, harassment or threat of such. Perhaps the stress of our current economic conditions is leading to more of these requests, in that the parties simply cannot tolerate being in the same home together. However, even in poor economic times, there is no authority for the proposition that one spouse has superior rights to possession and/or occupancy of a community home absent extenuating factors.

More information to follow once the court's full opinion is released.

The federal court held that DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage as it sees fit. It further held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Although this ruling applies only to Massachusetts for now, it could have wide-ranging impact across the country.

In particular, the finding that DOMA violates the equal protection clause will be closely monitored by the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit in California alleging that Proposition 8, the law which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is also unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in that case have argued that the California law is a violation of equal protection because it specifically seeks to exclude a target group of people of whom the voters disapproved.

It is expected that these two rulings will be appealed, but it is uncertain at this time how vigorously the Obama administration will attempt to overturn the court's rulings. Stay tuned, more developments are bound to happen soon.

"It's just a glaring case where California law as it is now can reward someone who plans vicious murder," said Democratic Assemblyman Marty Block, who introduced the bill, AB2674. "In a way, the current law rewards the spouse for committing this kind of crime against the person they're married to or in the process of divorcing."

The full article appears below:

Calif. bill would target spouses who hire hit men
June 14, 2010|By CATHY BUSSEWITZ, Associated Press Writer

The story behind the legislation reads like a movie pitch.

The wife of a Southern California police detective, distraught because she had lost custody of her children, tries to hire a hit man from the Vagos motorcycle gang to kill him.

Instead, gang members alert police, who disguise themselves as biker thugs and secretly tape a conversation with her, leading to the wife's arrest and ultimate conviction for solicitation of murder.

But later on, in divorce court, she is awarded half the couple's property, even though she tried to have her husband whacked. He then calls Sacramento, determined to change the divorce law.

A bill scheduled to be heard Tuesday in a state legislative committee seeks to close what its author says is a loophole in the state's no-fault divorce code. In part, the legislation will specify that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect financial rewards in divorce proceedings.

The bill was prompted by John Pomroy, a police detective in Pomona, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. His wife collected about $70,000 from their estate after she was released from prison in 2004.

"If you commit arson on your house, you don't get the insurance money. You go to prison and all sorts of things happen to you," Pomroy said in an interview. "But if you try to kill someone that is your spouse, the current law allows you to collect something."

State law says that if spouses are convicted of murdering or attempting to murder their husband or wife, they are not entitled to reap any financial benefits during divorce proceedings. But if they hire someone else to do the dirty deed for them, their victims' assets are not protected.

The bill would amend the law to include husbands or wives who solicit the murder of their spouse.

"It's just a glaring case where California law as it is now can reward someone who plans vicious murder," said Democratic Assemblyman Marty Block, who introduced the bill, AB2674. "In a way, the current law rewards the spouse for committing this kind of crime against the person they're married to or in the process of divorcing."

Divorce laws vary from state to state. In California, a couple's shared assets are generally split evenly during a divorce.

That's the case in most states, said Krystal Callaway Jaime, supervising attorney for the Family Protection Clinic at the University of California, Davis.

"This bill is very, very necessary," Jaime said. "It seems obscure, but this does happen more frequently than people realize."

After being married for a decade, Pomroy said his marriage dissolved when his wife became addicted to pain killers after injuring her foot in a dirt bike accident. She later turned to alcohol, and finally illegal drugs, he said.

He said they separated when she became physically abusive. He lived in the basement of the police department for a month after moving out of the couple's house and later gained custody of their children.

When his wife faced losing the children and her husband's monetary support, she solicited members of the Vagos motorcycle gang living down the street. She said she wanted them to kill her husband while he was on duty, Pomroy said.

"I think she felt like she had to hurry up and get rid of me, because she was going to lose our sons," Pomroy said.

The San Bernardino County district attorney's office said Pomroy's ex-wife pleaded guilty to soliciting others to murder her husband in early 2003.

An official at the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla said Pomroy's ex-wife entered the prison in February 2003 and served time until she was paroled in March 2004. She was returned to prison twice since then and is currently on parole, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly but relayed the details of the woman's corrections department record.

Attempts to contact her were not successful.

Michael O'Brien, a Covina-based attorney who represented Pomroy's wife during the trial for solicitation of murder, agreed with the details of Pomroy's story.

But O'Brien said he doesn't believe Pomroy's wife was going to follow through with the murderous plot. He said she was broke, desperate and strung out after years of drug abuse, and couldn't afford to pay someone to kill Pomroy.

"She tried to steal a basket full of groceries for her family and got caught," he said. "She was at the end of her rope when these events took place."

During their separation, their house went into foreclosure and his wife said the cars were stolen, Pomroy said. His bank account, to which she had access, was drained. The only money he had left was in his pension account, and she was awarded half its value.

O'Brien said it was fair that Pomroy's wife got the money because she had supported him during the early years of their marriage by raising the children while he became a police officer.

But Pomroy, who still fears his ex-wife, disagreed.

"This Assembly bill is not going to award me anything retroactively; I'm not looking for that," he said. "I'm just trying to prevent some poor sap in the future who goes through this, to prevent him from losing his assets to somebody that's trying to kill him."