California Divorce Lawyer Blog

The 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals in San Francisco today upheld the ruling by a lower federal court that California's controversial Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The Court held that Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and "serves no purpose... than to lessen the status of gays and lesbians in California..."

Supporters of Proposition 8 say they are prepared to take the matter all the way to the United States Supreme Court. And, despite today's ruling, a "stay" remains in place preventing the order from going into effect (allowing same-sex couples to marry) until the appeals process has been exhausted or further court order.

Additionally, the 9th Circuit found no reason that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have either recused himself from the underlying case or disclosed his own sexual orientation prior to taking the case. Walker, who is gay, was found to have properly heard, analyzed and ruled on the case. Supporters of Proposition 8 also tried previously to have Walker's ruling that the law was unconstitutional thrown out to no avail.

This matter is by no means resolved, and may very likely result in an ultimate appeal to the United States Supreme Court. However, at first read, it appears that the 9th Circuit based their analysis, in large part, on the specific circumstances here in California that led to Proposition 8 in the first place; that is, the history of permitting domestic partnerships and extending marital rights to registered domestic partners (without the title) and eventually the ruling by the California Supreme Court that same-sex couples were entitled to marry under the California state constitution. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may consider the ruling to apply only in California and not to other states as a whole.

Stay tuned, there's definitely more to come.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Finds California's Proposition 8 Unconstitutional" »

This is a question a number of clients have asked me over the past few years, especially as the economy continues to slumber along here in California. And it seems tempting, of course, to find ways to pinch pennies until things improve. However, I have also been hired by many clients who have tried to handle family law or divorce cases on their own, and found out that they have actually made matters worse for themselves.

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.

Continue reading "Why Hire a Lawyer and Not a Legal Document Preparer?" »

If you happened to miss my appearance as an in-studio guest on the Ronn Owens Program (KGO-AM 810) on September 8, 2011, you can now download Ronn's official podcast of that hour. Ronn, his callers and I discussed many aspects of divorce and family law in California. I'm looking forward to our next program together.

To download and play the podcast, click here.

Continue reading "Your Second Chance to Hear Gary's Appearance on the Ronn Owens Program" »

According to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau and reported on in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pennsylvanians are both marrying and divorcing at a lower rate than the rest of the country (including California), a quality they share with many men and women of the Northeast.

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.

Continue reading "Census Report Shows Marriage Works Better in Pennsylvania than in California" »

Prenuptial agreements are often associated with the rich and famous (Barry Bonds, anyone?)... but, the reality is that many couples in California can benefit from a carefully constructed premarital agreement to identify separate assets and define the rules of their marriage. For example, prenuptial agreements are frequently considered by parties who have been previously married and divorced (or widowed), or by older, established individuals with significant property and/or children whom they want to protect. A recent article published on Bankrate.com discusses this very topic.

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.

Continue reading "Prenuptial Agreements Are Not Just For Hollywood Celebrities" »

We are pleased to announce that Gary Sparks will be appearing as a special guest on the top-rated Ronn Owens Program on KGO-AM 810 radio in San Francisco on September 8, 2011. Gary will be discussing California divorce and family law issues with Ronn and with callers to the program, and is eager to reach out to listeners throughout the greater Bay Area and Northern California.

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.

Continue reading "Just Confirmed: Gary Sparks to Appear as Special Guest on the Ronn Owens Program" »

A Pennsylvania judge has created a First Amendment uproar by ordering a father to take down his "Psycho Ex-Wife" blog in which he railed against and blasted his former spouse, and sometimes speaks unflatteringly about his children.

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.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Father's "Psycho Ex-Wife" Blog Ordered Shut Down by Court" »

We are pleased to announce our move our Walnut Creek main office into new office space! Our new space is located at:

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.

Here's a new twist on the heated debate we have here in California regarding civil unions vs. marriage. The ABA Journal reports that a straight couple in the UK are suing for the right to tie the knot in a civil union rather than in marriage.

Over the past few years here in California, the state has gone from expanding the Family Code to permit same-sex couples to register as domestic partners with the same rights and privileges as spouses, to the Supreme Court determining that marriage for same-sex couples was a constitutional right, to Proposition 8 which amended the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. And the story is still unfolding in the courts. Currently, Proposition 8 has been found to violate the federal constitution on multiple grounds, and an appeal is working its way through the appellate courts.

Gay couples across the country, and around the world, have long argued that they should be entitled to marry, just as straight couples have the right to marry, instead of being forced to settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships. Opponents, led by religious groups such as the Mormon church, strongly oppose this argument and argue that marriage has "always been" between a man and a woman, and that permitting same-sex couples the right to marry would impose rules on churches that violate their dogma. They insist that same-sex couples are offered the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples through civil unions, just under a different name. (Note: although at the federal level, same-sex civil partners are not offered the same marital tax benefits as opposite-sex spouses.)

In this new twist, a straight couple have been denied a civil union in the UK because they are not a same-sex couple. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners—we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that," says Katherine Doyle. She and her partner, Tom Freeman, argue that a civil partnership under British law is more in keeping with their personal style, even though marriage and civil unions provide the same benefits.

Gay rights activists believe that a win in this case would likely help encourage the right of same-sex couples to wed. Regardless of which side of the argument you support, this will be a fascinating story to watch unfold in the coming months.

Continue reading "UK Couple Sues for Right to Civil Union Instead of Marriage" »

In a story reported by the Associated Press, a bill pending before the California legislature is intended to close a loophole in the state's "no-fault" divorce laws. Under California law, if you are convicted of murdering or attempting to murder your spouse, you cannot collect any financial reward from the divorce proceedings. But, if you hire a hit man to do it, the law is silent.

"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."

Continue reading "Hire a Hit Man, Lose Out in Your Divorce" »