Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Lily and Nikhil Patel were married in 2002 and have two children, both born in Georgia. The family moved to California in late 2019, and then to Georgia in July 2023, where the children attended school and the family searched for a new home. In December 2023, Lily took the children to California to visit her family, with plans to return to Georgia, but a disagreement arose regarding the children’s return. This led to conflicting claims by each parent about the circumstances of their separation.In January 2024, Lily filed for a domestic violence restraining order and requested custody of the children in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, which issued temporary orders. She also filed a petition for legal separation in California, requesting custody. Meanwhile, Nikhil filed for divorce in Georgia. Nikhil moved to dismiss Lily’s custody request on jurisdictional grounds under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and separately moved to dismiss Lily’s petition for legal separation, arguing that California Family Code section 2345 requires the consent of both spouses for legal separation and he did not consent.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three reviewed the family court’s dismissal of Lily’s petition for legal separation. The appellate court held that, under Family Code section 2345, a judgment of legal separation cannot be rendered without the consent of both parties unless the judgment is taken by default. The court found that the family court had inherent authority to dismiss the petition when the statutory consent requirement could not be met. The order dismissing Lily’s petition for legal separation was affirmed, and the court clarified that the family court did not err in dismissing the petition under the record presented. View "In re Marriage of Patel" on Justia Law

A married couple underwent in vitro fertilization and created two frozen embryos, signing a written agreement with the IVF provider that specified options for disposing of the embryos in the event of legal separation or divorce. The agreement offered several choices, including discarding the embryos, donating them, or making them available to one partner if desired. The couple selected and initialed the option stating the embryos would be “made available to the partner if he/she wishes.” After the couple separated, the husband sought to have the embryos discarded, while the wife wanted to use them to attempt pregnancy.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the husband filed a motion to discard the embryos, and the wife requested immediate rights to them. Following an evidentiary hearing at which both parties acknowledged the agreement and their signatures, the court found the contract valid, clear, and unambiguous, and awarded the embryos to the wife. The court issued a minute order and later a formal order reflecting this decision.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, determined the order was not directly appealable but exercised its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Reviewing the IVF agreement independently, the appellate court held that when parties have entered a valid contract specifying the disposition of embryos in the event of divorce, that agreement governs. The court found the contract’s language unambiguous and concluded the embryos should be made available to the wife, as specified. The court further found no violation of public policy or constitutional rights and denied the husband’s petition, affirming that the wife was entitled to the embryos under the contract. View "Pham v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Following a divorce, a father was granted supervised visitation with his two minor children. The supervision was to be conducted by a licensed therapist selected by the mother, as the parents could not agree on a supervisor. The therapist, after supervising some visits, suspended the father’s visitation, stating that the sessions could not proceed successfully unless the father admitted to charges of kidnapping and neglect and recognized their impact on his children.The father subsequently filed suit against the therapist, bringing three claims, including one for reckless infliction of emotional distress stemming from the suspension of visitation. In the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, the therapist moved for summary judgment. The father conceded two of his claims, leaving only the emotional distress claim regarding the suspension of visitation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the therapist, finding that the claim was barred by the litigation privilege and quasi-judicial immunity, and further concluding that the alleged conduct did not support a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed only the emotional distress claim related to the suspension of visitation. Applying a de novo standard of review, the appellate court held that quasi-judicial immunity bars the claim. The court determined that the therapist was performing a judicial function delegated by the court—specifically, the authority to suspend visitation under the California Standards of Judicial Administration. The opinion found this function to be indistinguishable from those protected by quasi-judicial immunity in prior precedents. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the therapist. View "Vergara v. Ouse" on Justia Law

The petitioner and real party in interest are the parents of a minor son, Xander. The petitioner, who has primary physical custody, was found in contempt by the Superior Court of Orange County for five alleged violations of custody-related court orders. The contempt findings were based on the petitioner’s unilateral decisions involving Xander’s participation in school sports and orthodontic treatment, as well as scheduling activities that overlapped with the other parent’s visitation time. The central factual disputes involved whether the petitioner’s actions—signing Xander up for sports teams and braces—constituted violations of joint legal custody and scheduling orders.After a high-conflict parentage case, the trial court (Superior Court of Orange County) conducted a contempt proceeding based on an amended Order to Show Cause filed by the real party in interest. Initially, 36 violations were alleged; after dismissal of many counts, a trial was held on five remaining counts. The trial court found the petitioner guilty on all counts, imposing a $10,000 sanction. The findings were largely based on a pattern of the petitioner presenting decisions to the other parent as a fait accompli.On review, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, strictly construed the underlying orders and held that the contempt judgment was unsupported by substantial evidence of willful violation. The court found that the joint legal custody order did not require mutual consent for specific activities and did not prohibit unilateral decision-making, while the scheduling order did not extend to the petitioner’s authorization of Xander’s participation in events scheduled by third parties. The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of certiorari and annulled the contempt judgment, concluding that the orders lacked the specificity necessary to support a finding of contempt. The petitioner was awarded costs for the proceeding. View "Houser v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A woman filed for dissolution of her marriage after six months, seeking a permanent domestic violence restraining order against her husband. The parties share a young daughter, S.R., and the wife has two other daughters, K.R. and D.R., from a prior relationship. The wife alleged that K.R., age 13, had disclosed incidents of sexual abuse by the husband. K.R. described being touched inappropriately by the husband on two occasions, one occurring recently and one two years prior. These allegations were relayed to law enforcement and a school counselor, and the wife filed a declaration detailing K.R.’s statements as part of her restraining order request.The Superior Court of Orange County held an evidentiary hearing in which the wife testified about K.R.’s statements. The trial court admitted these statements over the husband’s hearsay objections, found the wife credible, and granted a restraining order protecting the wife, K.R., D.R., and S.R. The order included sole legal and physical custody of S.R. to the wife, with the husband permitted professional monitored visitation with S.R. once a month, citing concerns that the monitor could not understand Spanish, S.R.’s primary language. The trial court also took judicial notice of pending criminal charges against the husband, and subsequently entered judgment dissolving the marriage.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that K.R.’s out-of-court statements were admissible for their truth under the child dependency hearsay exception recognized in In re Cindy L., and clarified that this exception applies in domestic violence restraining order proceedings involving sexual abuse of a minor. The court found error in the trial court’s reliance on pending criminal charges as substantive evidence, but determined the error was not prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the part of the restraining order limiting visitation with S.R., concluding the trial court misapplied the law regarding professional monitors’ language requirements, and remanded for reconsideration of visitation. The restraining order was otherwise affirmed. View "Marriage of M.P. and M.C." on Justia Law

After separating from his wife Monique in 2016, Brett, a sculptor, was ordered in a dissolution proceeding to pay spousal and child support. Brett accumulated approximately $2 million in unpaid support obligations and, according to his own testimony, held no assets apart from a copyright in certain works associated with Michael Jackson. Monique moved to have a receiver appointed and to compel Brett to assign the copyright to the receiver for purposes of monetization to satisfy the outstanding support debt.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Monique’s request, appointing a receiver and ordering Brett to assign his copyright to that receiver. Brett did not dispute his debt or the fact that his copyright was his only asset but argued that existing law did not authorize courts to compel the assignment of a copyright, contending that such authority existed only for patents. He timely appealed from this order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 695.010, subdivision (a), all property of a judgment debtor, including copyrights, is subject to enforcement of a money judgment unless a specific exception applies. The court found no exception for copyrights. It further reasoned that although no published California case had previously addressed forced assignment of copyrights, statutes and past cases regarding other intellectual property, such as patents, supported the trial court’s authority. The court also found persuasive support in analogous federal and out-of-state decisions. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order compelling Brett to assign his copyright to the receiver and denied Monique’s request for appellate sanctions. Respondent was awarded costs on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Strong" on Justia Law

In March 2015, Henry J. Lugo III signed a voluntary declaration of paternity (VDOP) identifying himself as the biological father of a child, and this declaration was filed with the Department of Child Support Services. In 2023, the County of Los Angeles initiated a child support action against Lugo based on the VDOP. Lugo denied being the child’s father and subsequently, after the trial court entered an order and a judgment requiring him to pay child support, he filed a request to set aside the VDOP on the ground of fraud, alleging he had been misled about the child's paternity and supported this with DNA evidence indicating he was not the biological father.Previously, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Lugo’s request to set aside the VDOP as untimely, reasoning that under the current version of Family Code section 7576, such a challenge must be brought within two years of the VDOP’s filing. Lugo argued that, according to Judicial Council form FL-281, which interprets the statute, the applicable time frame for VDOPs filed before January 1, 2020, is within six months after an initial court order for custody, visitation, or child support is made based on the VDOP. The trial court rejected this argument, finding the request untimely since Lugo filed it more than nine years after the VDOP was executed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that for VDOPs filed before January 1, 2020, a request to set aside may be timely filed under the time frame permitted by former Family Code section 7575, subdivision (c)(1). Specifically, the request is timely if brought within a reasonable time, not exceeding six months, after an initial court order for custody, visitation, or child support based on the VDOP. Because Lugo filed his request within this period, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for consideration of the request’s merits. View "County of Los Angeles v. Lugo" on Justia Law

A child, X.D., was born in May 2022 and immediately placed with prospective adoptive parents, Cliff and Rebecca, after his biological mother, Jessica, relinquished him for adoption. Jessica had suffered repeated physical and emotional abuse from X.D.’s biological father, Raymon, including an incident where Raymon struck her in the face two weeks after learning of her pregnancy. Following this, Jessica left Raymon, sought refuge in a domestic violence shelter, and cut off communication. Raymon was unaware of X.D.’s birth and believed Jessica had miscarried after she told him the baby “is not here no more.” Throughout Jessica’s pregnancy, Raymon made sporadic attempts to contact her but did not provide support for the pregnancy or the child.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the adoption petition and Raymon’s opposition, in which he claimed status as a “Kelsey S. father”—an unwed biological father who is constitutionally entitled to block adoption if he promptly demonstrates a full commitment to parental responsibilities. The trial court found Raymon qualified as a Kelsey S. father, reasoning that Jessica’s actions prevented him from asserting his rights and that he had shown sufficient emotional and financial commitment. The court excluded key evidence—screenshots of Raymon’s threatening text messages—on authentication and hearsay grounds.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in excluding the text message evidence, which was sufficiently authenticated and relevant. Upon considering the full record, including the excluded evidence, the appellate court found insufficient support for Raymon’s claim to Kelsey S. status. The court further determined that it was not in X.D.’s best interest for Raymon to retain parental rights. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions to allow the adoption to proceed. View "Adoption of X.D." on Justia Law

Ashley McCall Hart and Steven Hart, who were married and have two children, became involved in a series of legal disputes following Ashley’s filing for dissolution of marriage in October 2017. On the same day, Ashley requested a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Steven, which the Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted temporarily. Steven responded by filing his own DVRO request against Ashley, but after hearings, the court denied Steven’s request and granted Ashley a one-year DVRO. Ashley later dismissed a renewal request in accordance with a settlement agreement. In July 2023, Ashley again sought a DVRO, and the court issued a nine-month order. Before its expiration, Ashley requested renewal, which was granted for another nine months.Ashley appealed the renewal duration, arguing that Family Code section 6345 requires a minimum five-year renewal period for DVROs. The Superior Court had found Ashley demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future abuse but believed it had discretion to renew the DVRO for less than five years.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a), a court may renew a DVRO only for five or more years, or permanently, at its discretion, but not for a period less than five years. The court found that the statutory language and legislative history clearly establish a mandatory minimum renewal period of five years, and the trial court’s discretion is limited to choosing between five years, a longer period, or permanent renewal. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order to the extent it provided for a nine-month renewal and remanded with instructions to modify the order to provide for a five-year renewal. View "Hart v. Hart" on Justia Law

Elena Kouvabina and Jacob Veltman, both attorneys, were married in 2010, had a child in 2012, and separated in 2017. Since their separation, Kouvabina, acting as a self-represented litigant, initiated a series of contentious legal proceedings related to their dissolution, custody, support, and related family law matters. Over a five-year period, she commenced, prosecuted, or maintained eleven appeals and writs in the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three. Of these, nine—comprising five appeals and four writ petitions—were finally determined adversely to her, including repeated unsuccessful efforts to disqualify trial judges and appeals from orders on spousal support, child support, custody, visitation, and attorney fees.The San Mateo County Superior Court previously handled the underlying family law proceedings, issuing various orders and judgments that Kouvabina challenged through appeals and writs. In each instance, the appellate court either affirmed the lower court’s decisions or summarily denied her writ petitions. These adverse outcomes formed the basis for the appellate court’s review of her litigation conduct.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, on its own motion, reviewed whether Kouvabina met the statutory definition of a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(1). The court found that she had, within the preceding seven years, while self-represented, commenced at least five litigations that were finally determined adversely to her. The court rejected her arguments that appeals do not constitute “litigation” under the statute and that family law matters should be treated differently. The court declared Kouvabina a vexatious litigant and imposed a prefiling order prohibiting her from filing new litigation in California courts while self-represented without first obtaining leave from the presiding judge or justice. No costs were awarded. View "in re Marriage of Kouvabina" on Justia Law