California Divorce Lawyer Blog

Clients going through the divorce process in California aren't the only ones who struggle to cope with the stress of a failed marriage. The attorneys do, too.

La Jolla family law attorney Steven Robert Liss was arrested this past Monday and charged with solicitation to commit murder, false imprisonment and spousal battery, according to the Los Angeles Times and the ABA Journal.

Liss was arrested after his wife, Karen, and other members of the community contacted police with information that he was trying to harm her. "The investigation revealed that on multiple occasions over the past several months, Liss sought the help of others to have his wife murdered," said San Diego police spokesperson Monica Munoz.

Since 1987 when he began to practice law, Liss' law license has been suspended twice as a result of client complaints that he failed to complete legal work on their behalf.

No amount of stress from a failed marriage can justify a person's attempt to murder his/her spouse. However, the stress caused by failed marriages and divorce filings can be quite disabling in some instances, and can lead parties to make less rational decisions than they would otherwise do when not under the influence of stress.

For this reason, I strongly advocate that parties seek individual counseling or therapy to learn how to cope with this stress when faced with divorce. Furthermore, I almost always recommend that parents additionally seek out "co-parenting counselors" to help them learn how to parent their children together in the new post-separation reality.

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

As reported today (tomorrow) by the Victoria Herald Sun, divorce has a huge impact on your health, even if you remarry.

According to a study by Chicago University soon to be published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, divorced or widowed people have 20% more chronic health conditions like heart disease, cancer and diabetes than married people, and also have more mobility problems such as walking and climbing stairs.

Divorcees who don't remarry suffer the greatest ill-health effects due to a drop in income and increased stress resulting from child care and custody issues.

I'll watch for the published study and post a link if it becomes publicly accessible.

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

California Family Code Section 2320 requires that one of the parties to a dissolution of marriage must have lived in the state for at least six months and in the particular county where the dissolution will be filed for at least three months prior to the filing of the action. Additionally, the state requires that parties must wait a minimum of six months after service of the Petition and Summons to actually become divorced (often called the "cooling off" period).

This sometimes causes a problem for a party who wants to file for divorce immediately, but doesn't meet the state's residency requirements. Not only might the party have to wait for six months to meet the residency requirements, but then would have to wait for at least another six months to become divorced.

That's where California Family Code Section 2321 comes into play. This section permits a party to file a Petition for Legal Separation (which has no residency requirements), and then afterwards amend that filing to a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage once the residency requirements have been met.

In this situation, the date of the amended Petition is used to satisfy the residency requirement, but the dissolution can proceed forward as if the original Petition for Legal Separation had been a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage instead. In other words, the party could conceivably save up to six months over waiting to satisfy the residency requirements before filing for dissolution in the first place.

Obtaining a divorce in California can frequently take much longer than six months. Depending on the circumstances in a particular case, it is possible for a divorce to take 12, 18 or even 24 months to be finalized. Although there is a way to terminate a marriage prior to the resolution of all the divorce issues (called "bifurcation" and termination of status), many times it may not be cost-effective given the requirements under the Family Code. A competent Family Law attorney can help walk you through the complexities of your case and give you an understanding of what will be required to obtain your divorce.

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

Note: it has been pointed out to me that Los Angeles-area family law attorney Evan Braunstein wrote a similar blog post several months ago, and I am happy to provide a link to his blog here.

Justice Leah Ward Sears, who stepped down from her position of Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court just this past week, has written an interesting commentary condemning what she calls "disposable marriage" and "casual divorce." These are terms frequently used to describe what we in California call "no fault" divorce.

Justice Sears, who has "long held a front row seat to the wreckage left behind by our culture of disposable marriage and casual divorce," writes from a very personal perspective, having recently suffered the loss of her brother who took his own life in the aftermath of his divorce. Justice Sears believes her brother struggled with having been cut off from his children and suffered from the immense pain of his divorce and the limitations placed on his ability to raise his children after divorce.

She writes, "I believe the United States and a host of Western democracies are engaged in an unintended campaign to diminish the importance of marriage and fatherhood. By refusing to do everything we can to stem the rising rate of divorce and unwed childbearing, our country often isolates fathers (and sometimes mothers) from their children and their families."

Whether you agree with Justice Sears' viewpoint or not, it's a worthwhile read and a different take on our California "no fault divorce" than we usually hear from attorneys and judges.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.