When you are ready for a divorce, you might be ready to have it completed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, California requires a six-month waiting period before a divorce is finalized. So, while you might both agree things are over, you will still have to wait.

Most divorce proceedings take longer than six months, but if you are able to agree on the legal matters, you could come to an agreement much sooner than that. Still, you will have to wait six months from the date that the responding party is served with the divorce petition until it can be official. You can submit your judgment and get it signed by the court, but the date of termination will be set in the future, likely at the six-month date. California does this to prevent couples who change their mind from having to get re-married. Essentially, the state thinks that a cooling-off period of six months is enough time for both parties to confirm that they want the marriage to end. 

Child support and spousal support are two big pieces of many family law cases. Child support helps to balance the spending power of each parent towards the children, while spousal support helps to balance the income the parties were accustomed to during marriage. In both of these calculations, the income of each party is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of support.

So, one might think it would be a great idea to temporarily lower their income to pay less money in support. If you are self-employed, you might take less jobs during the months leading up to the support calculations. If you typically work a lot of overtime, you might hold back until support has been ordered. You might also consider quitting your job or not looking for work until support is in place. While these sound like good strategies, the Court has a way to work around these tactics. The Court may impute an income to you that is different than your actual income. So, by looking at your ability to work and the opportunities available for you to work, the Court may assign you a higher income for the purposes of calculating support. Your work experience, education, and job availability will steer the Court to create your imputed income, which could end up being higher than what your actual income would be. So, it may not actually be wise to try to hide and disguise your income, as the outcome may be worse for you. 

Tomorrow is Valentine's day, and I'm sure many people are scrambling for last-second gift ideas. It might be unconventional, but maybe a prenup or a post-nup is the way to go this Valentine's day! You may think a prenup is not romantic, but below are all of the reasons why it would truly be the best Valentine's day gift idea this year.

1. A prenuptial agreement outlines what belongs to who entering into the marriage, thus making it clear to both parties during the marriage which things belong to who.

2. Getting a prenuptial agreement can be a great educational experience. It teaches you all about what you are getting into as you approach your upcoming marriage. Or, for a post-nup, it teaches you the status of all of your property. Many people don't realize that in California all income after marriage belongs to both parties equally. If you get a prenup, you will have more knowledge!

3. It's a practical gift that is still in the spirit of love! Some people struggle finding that right gift that is in the spirit of Valentines day that is still practical. A prenup is all about love and marriage, yet it's also practical, as it outlines the roles of both parties in the marriage. What could be better?

4. In all seriousness, a prenup can help lessen any potential future heartbreak, by making the divorce process simpler and easier. So, you could be (but hopefully not!) saving yourself from sad future Valentine's days. 

When you and your ex are no longer together, typically an arrangement for child custody and visitation is put into place, whether by agreement or court order. Often, these agreements leave children with one parent primarily, with visitation with the other parent on alternating weekends, in the summer, or on particular days of the week. When things are going smoothly, this is no problem, but more often than not, life is rocky, and visitation arrangements might not make your child happy. The question is, when does the court care?

Well, it depends on what the problem is. The rule of thumb is that the court is open to hearing a child's opinion on their living situation when they are 14 years or older. However, even with these children, the court does not just grant their desires. The court understands that teenagers are emotionally vulnerable and attempts to understand the motivation behind their desires. If they don't want to live with one parent simply because they are too strict, the court might not care as much as compared to if the child expresses that the parent doesn't take care of them adequately. 

Even for children younger than 14, the court might care about what they want, but the courts typically want to make parents aware that visitation is not an option. Some parents come to court and say their young child did not want to go to the other parent's house, so they didn't force them to. Well, unfortunately, you have to lay down some parental discipline and force your children to go. Obviously, don't drag them kicking and screaming, but simply caving to your children's desires is not fulfilling the visitation arrangement and teaches your children that time with the other parent is not important.

So, in general, the court does care what your child thinks about visitation arrangements, but only if they are old enough, and only if they have a legitimate reason. In addition, you should make sure your children understand that visitation arrangements are mandatory, not negotiable. 

If you have children and are headed towards a breakup or divorce, you're probably wondering how the courts decide custody arrangements. While the default arrangement is joint legal and joint physical custody, joint physical custody does not mean "50-50" custody. The courts don't like dictating your children's schedules, and hope that you can come to an agreement. In fact, they want you to agree so much that they force you to meet with a Child Custody Recommending Counselor, also known as a Mediator.You might think that mediation sounds like a good idea, and that there's no harm in trying, but there are a few extra layers to unpack about mediation.

First, if you have a lawyer, they cannot come with you. For some reason, courts think that attorneys will get in the way and prevent people from agreeing to anything. In my experience in family law, that's typically the opposite, as ex-spouses and ex-partners are more likely to bicker about irrelevant issues when their attorney's are not present. This also means that you might be pressured to sign an agreement that you don't understand, so be careful when entering mediation, as you might not like what you agree to.

Second, even if you don't agree on anything, the Mediator will write their recommendation to the judge. Since judges don't like to make decisions about the particulars of custody schedules, they often adopt the Mediator's recommendations. So, while you might not enjoy talking with your ex, it's important to put on a good show for the Mediator, in order to get a more desirable recommendation from them. In this sense, the Mediators serve less like a Mediator and more like a quasi-judge, so it is important to take Mediation very seriously.

There are many flaws with California's system of forced Mediation for custody disputes, but it doesn't seem like the system is changing anytime soon. Thus, it is important to consult with an attorney before you go into mediation, so that you are fully prepared for what is actually going to happen.

The concept of spousal support is a controversial one. Many people think that once a marriage is over, both parties should move on with their lives and should not need spousal support. However, that ignores the realities of marital relationships, where oftentimes one spouse gives up a promising career path in order to support the family's needs. There is, however, one big factor that will determine the total amount of spousal support paid, and that is the length of the marriage. 

It may seem arbitrary, but California courts have set a length that defines what they call a "marriage of long duration." California Family Code Section 4336 outlines that the court retains indefinite jurisdiction over spousal support  for a marriage of long duration unless the parties agree or the court orders that support is terminated. There is also a rebuttable presumption that a marriage lasting ten years is a marriage of long duration. 

In practice, this means that if your marriage lasts ten years, the court will typically retain jurisdiction over spousal support indefinitely, and unless you show the court that the parties are self-sufficient and not in need of support, your spouse could receive support from you for the rest of your lives. However, if you marriage lasts less than ten years, the court will typically only award spousal support for a duration that is half the length of the marriage. So, an eight year marriage would likely result in four years of spousal support, whereas a ten year marriage can create indefinite spousal support. Thus, this small difference in the length of your marriage can have a huge effect on your wallet.

Many people equate a courtroom battle to a sporting event like the Super Bowl. Two sides enter and one side triumphs over the other. While that may be true in criminal cases or personal injury lawsuits, it is rarely true in family law - especially when child custody is involved.

Nobody wins a child custody battle. Unless both sides agree on how to split time with the children, it is unlikely that either side will have truly gotten what they wanted. And if that is the case, you shouldn't be in court. In the rare cases where one side gets everything they asked the court for, they still don't feel like a winner. If they fought to decrease the other parent's visitation, I'm sure they would prefer that the other parent was a better parent who deserved more visitation. If they fought to increase their own visitation, it's likely that they still feel like they should have more visitation. In most cases though, neither side ends up getting what they want. The two sides might come up with a compromise and make an agreement. Or, the court might make the compromise for them. Either way, oftentimes both sides walk away from a custody battle feeling like they lost - because they both didn't get everything they asked for. 

Because of this, it is important to keep perspective on what parts of your requests are most important to you. Since you know you're going to likely walk away as a loser, it makes sense to focus on trying to win the most important battles. 

The basics of community property teach you that all income earned in marriage belongs to the community unless it is an inheritance or a gift. These gifts and inheritances are considered your separate property, even if they are received during the marriage. But, some gifts might not actually count as your separate property.

California also has rules about "transmutations," which are contracts between spouses to change the character of some property. In order to change community property into one spouse's separate property, there needs to be a signed writing clearly evidencing the intent to change the character of the property. So, when your spouse buys you a car as gift for your birthday, writes you a note saying "I gift you a car. Happy Birthday,"  and signs the note, the car is still community property, because there was not clear intent to change the character of the property. 

So, unless you meet the qualifications for a transmutation, a gift between spouses during marriage is unfortunately, not considered a gift for the purposes of characterizing property. 

As the #metoo movement continues to make headlines and survivors throughout the country continue to speak up, many people are expressing concerns over taking allegations as fact. In addition to expressing these concerns, many people are claiming that no crimes have been committed and that the alleged perpetrators - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Adam Venit, and many others - are still "innocent until proven guilty" and that they have not been shown to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

While those statements are true, they confuse the issue. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard used in criminal courts in the United States. However, when it comes to civil liability, the standard is often "by a preponderance of the evidence," essentially meaning "more likely than not." In fact, this standard is applied to the issuance of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVRO). Much of the accused behavior would be grounds for a survivor to obtain a DVRO, but that remedy was not pursued (likely for the same reasons that the survivors remained silent for all these years). So, to infer that the behavior of these men would not subject them to any court liability is inaccurate and does a disservice to survivors who may now be further silenced for not thinking they can do anything.

If the standard to obtain a DVRO is essentially "more likely than not," then there shouldn't be any problem with employers or the general public making their decisions based on a "more likely than not" standard - essentially using their own judgment. In addition, if you are a survivor of sexual harassment or any other abusive behavior and are in fear of your safety, don't be discouraged by others, and consider seeking a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. 

When going through the divorce process, many people dream about airing their spouse's dirty laundry in court. Similarly, some people worry they cannot get a divorce because they don't have "proof" of their spouse's poor behavior. In the end, however, it doesn't matter at all, as California is a "no fault" state when it comes to divorce. California was actually the first state to become a no-fault state back in 1970.

Essentially, in California and many other states, if you want a divorce, you should be able to get one. Thus, any discussion about a spouse's bad behavior is likely irrelevant. While it could become relevant when children are involved or when their bad behavior affected the community finances, activities that simply harmed the relationship would not really have a place in a California court during a divorce proceeding.

So, if you were worried about your lack of "proof" for a divorce, there's no need to worry. But unfortunately, if you were dreaming about proving that your spouse is a rotten person, you'll likely have to rely on the court of public approval instead.