Santa Rosa Divorce Lawyer Blog

A Brown University study recently found that divorce might be contagious.

The study, which traced 12,000 New England residents, found that couples with immediate friends who are divorcing were 75 percent more likely to split. We find such studies on marriage and divorce interesting. From time to time we even find them informative. While it may be true that a person in a bad marriage could be influenced by a friend who seeks divorce in Santa Rosa, we think that's about as far as it goes. This study went on to find that you were at an increased risk of divorce if you had friends of friends who were getting divorced. We think that is a bit of a stretch.

Among the findings of the study reported by Psychology Today:

-If a friend gets divorced, you are 147 percent more likely to get divorced within four years.

-If a sibling gets divorced, you are 22 percent more likely to get divorced within four years.

-You are 55 percent more likely to get divorced if you work at a small firm where a co-worker is getting divorced.

-Even those with two-degrees of separation can influence divorce. Friends of friends who are divorcing can impact a divorce rate.

While it's true that those we know and trust, and those we respect, can influence our decision making, it is equally true that in a world where half of all marriages end in divorce, numbers can confirm just about any conceivable trend.

Where this study strikes a cord with us is the extent to which someone in an unhappy marriage may be influenced by a friend to seek divorce without proper planning. If you are considering a divorce, we encourage you to seek the advice of a Santa Rosa divorce lawyer as early in the process as possible -- preferably even before a spouse is notified.

When executed correctly, a divorce can be a powerful tool that offers freedom and a new lease on life. When approached haphazardly, or without professional guidance, some former spouses find themselves with nothing but debt and few means or regaining the quality of life they deserve.

Continue reading "Peer pressure may influence divorce in Santa Ana but proper planning is critical" »

The case of a missing 7-year-old has authorities and relatives in a town on the California-Oregon border pleading with the child's stepmother for help in locating the boy, the Oregonian reported.

Sometimes, custody cases can become contentious and even violent and each side should always be represented by a Santa Rosa child custody attorney. In cases where the custodial parent either moves away or threatens to move away, parental kidnapping can result. While the circumstances of this particular case are anything but clear, the child's parents were in the middle of a contested divorce when the boy disappeared.

The child has been missing since disappearing from his elementary school on June 4, but family members indicate he is still alive. A massive search ended after 10 days and a $25,000 reward has been offered for his safe return. The search has become one of the largest in Oregon history and has stretched well into Northern California.

A parent contemplating a divorce is best served by speaking at length with a Santa Rosa divorce lawyer well before making any announcements to a spouse or speaking with friends or family. While this is obviously an extreme example, the fact is that emotions run very high during a divorce in which custody of children is at stake. Having a solid plan for your financial, emotional and physical well-being, and the well-being of your children, can provide a proper foundation for moving forward with a divorce in California.

California move away custody cases are special cases that always require the dedication of an experienced and professional California child custody attorney. Whether a parent seeks to prevent a spouse from leaving the area with a child, or wishes to move away so that he or she can make a fresh start, ensuring the proper legal groundwork is in place can prevent a child custody case from becoming a criminal investigation.

Continue reading "Proper planning, legal representation, can help prevent California child custody cases from spiraling out of control" »

The California divorce case involving Michael Douglas and his ex-wife, Diandra, is back in the news after more than a decade as she seeks half of his income from the upcoming release of Wall Street 2, the New York Post reported.

Diandra Douglas, who reportedly received $45 million as part of the couple's 2000 divorce, claims her divorce agreement states that she is entitled to half of the income Michael Douglas receives from any movies he did -- including residuals, merchandising and ancillary rights -- during their two decades of marriage. Her divorce attorney claims she is entitled to income from spinoffs, including the blockbuster movie Wall Street.

This case perfectly illustrates the importance of hiring an experienced Santa Rosa divorce lawyer when outlining the terms of any divorce agreement. Ambiguity in an agreement can come back to haunt a spouse years or even decades after the fact. Common causes of problems long after a divorce is final include non-payment of debt obligations, such as a mortgage or credit card debt, which can ruin a spouse's credit even if a divorce agreement requires a former spouse to pay the debt.

While it is not uncommon for a parent to seek an increase in child support when a former spouse's income increases substantially, this case is more a matter of determining what the initial divorce agreement provides Diandra Douglas. If the language is unclear, or if it failed to address income from sequels, the couple could spend a substantial amount of time and money arguing over an issue that should have been settled more than a decade ago.

And, while we might assume that a couple with millions at stake would not have finalized an ambiguous divorce agreement -- or that their attorneys would not have permitted them to do so -- that assumption might be incorrect. As it turns out, the lawsuit was filed by Diandra Douglas in New York: The agreement did not require disputes to be filed in California where the divorce was finalized.

Continue reading "Douglas dispute illustrates dangers of ambiguous California divorce agreements" »

California's no-fault divorce law may have its limits. Lawmakers are attempting to close a loophole after a woman who was convicted of hiring a hit-man to kill her husband won half the couple's assets as a result of the divorce.

The Associated Press reports the woman attempted to hire a man from the Vagos motorcycle gang to kill her husband. The man taped the conversation and the woman was arrested and convicted for solicitation of murder but was awarded $70,000 after being released from prison. Lawmakers seek to close the loophole that entitled her to half the couple's assets.

The spouse who was targeted is a Pomona police detective who pushed for passage of the new law. The couple's decade-long marriage ended after she became addicted to pain killers as a result of a dirt-bike accident, the husband claimed. She concocted the murder-for-hire plot after being faced with losing her children and the financial support of her husband.

Authorities report that she spent just over a year behind bars before being paroled. She has twice returned to prison and is currently on parole, although the prison system reported no details were available regarding the return trips to jail.

While California divorce law calls for an equal division of marital assets, seeking the advice of a Santa Rosa divorce lawyer is critical to protecting your rights. Determining what qualifies as a marital asset, ensuring that you have a clear picture of your spouse's assets, and conducting a proper valuation and appraisal of assets can all have a big impact on whether or not you are treated fairly in a divorce. A perfect example of this is the valuation of the marital home after the unprecedented collapse of the real estate market. A home valued at the purchase price could show a substantial asset for a spouse, when in reality he or she could be getting nothing more than an underwater mortgage.

Hidden assets, spousal and child support and visitation rights are also issues best handled by an experienced Santa Rosa divorce attorney. California's no-fault divorce law, which was the first in the nation when it was signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1969, really provides little more than a framework with which to begin negotiations. A spouse without adequate representation could walk away from a divorce with virtually nothing, while having received an equal division according to paperwork filed with the court.

Continue reading "California no-fault divorce up for modification after murder-for-hire plot" »

Earlier this month, former Vice-President Al Gore and his wife Tipper told friends that they are separating, after 40 years of marriage. On the heels of various recent marital fallouts in political families, people waited for scandalous details. However, the reason for the Gores' separation appears, by all accounts, to be simply that they grew apart.

After the initial surprise particular to this couple, which had appeared so solid, many people expressed a more general surprise: that older folks (the Gores are in their early sixties) would decide to separate after many years of marriage. That surprise, however, is apparently based on assumptions that no longer hold true.

According to Betsey Stevenson, a researcher who studies trends in family patterns, in 2008 the American Community Survey asked people whether they had gotten a divorce in the previous year. Of those who responded that they had, 25% had been married longer than 20 years. According to Stevenson, while divorce is more likely during the first 10 years of a marriage, after that threshold, the likelihood of divorce does not decrease with the passage of time.

In fact, couples are more likely to reevaluate their marriage after their children have moved out and settled into lives of their own. Researchers note that older couples today also enjoy a longer life expectancy, which makes them more likely to seek a fulfilling relationship for the years ahead--as well as more likely to find a partner who would fulfill those expectations. Thus, older Americans are increasingly divorcing--a phenomenon dubbed "Gray Divorce."

In "gray" divorces, which don't usually involve custody issues (although some recent marital disputes that figured prominently in the media, such as the divorce filing by Larry King and the acrimonious divorce of Dennis Hopper, might have made it appear otherwise), the most contentious issue is usually the division of the couple's property. Another divorce aspect that may come into play in gray divorce is spousal support. Different states take different approaches to those issues; an experienced California divorce attorney would be able to explain the laws and particular factors involved in such determinations in California, and possibly help couples reach divorce agreements that would enable them to move on to the rest of their lives with as little conflict as possible.

Continue reading "Al Gore and The Phenomenon of "Gray Divorce"" »

Men's Health Magazine recently made a splash by ranking U.S. cities in terms of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce there.

Earning the title of "Splitsville" as No. 1 in the ranking was the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Unlike California, Wyoming apparently does not impose a waiting period before a divorce is granted (in California, couples must wait a minimum of six months before getting a divorce), and couples in Wyoming can file for divorce there after living in that state for 60 days. In California, by comparison, couples can file for divorce only after they have resided in the state for a minimum of six months.

According to the magazine, the other U.S. city in which the likelihood of divorce was highest was Las Vegas, Nevada. The city in which divorces were least likely to occur was Northern California's own San Jose.

Even more useful, perhaps, would have been a ranking of cities according to the level of acrimony and litigiousness among the local divorces. There is a world of difference between an acrimonious divorce and a divorce between two people who simply come to the conclusion that they made a mistake in getting married, or that they have drifted apart over time. In the latter situations, couples may reach agreements about child custody and property division that allow them to avoid at least part of the stress, expense, and time drain involved in most litigated divorces.

The trend toward collaborative divorce in California reflects a recognition of the benefits of such agreements. In most collaborative divorces, each spouse hires an attorney, but the spouses and attorneys all sign an agreement stating that their goal is to reach a settlement without resorting to litigation. The spouses then meet with their own attorneys, as well as with each other and both attorneys present, and try to negotiate solutions to any issues that may be disputed.

Simply noting that a city has a lot of divorces or very few of them doesn't necessarily say a lot about the quality of life of the couples living there.

Continue reading "Ranking Cities by the Likelihood of Divorce among Their Residents" »

In legal terms, annulment does not mark the end of a period of marriage, as divorce does; instead, it is a determination that a particular marriage was never valid. It is a way of saying that the people involved were never properly married to each other.

Some people still feel that divorce carries a stigma, and for that reason hope to get an annulment instead; others have grown so resentful of their spouses that they really wish to wipe the slate clean, as if their marriage never happened. However, California law allows for annulments only in cases where specific justifications are present, and only within certain time limits (generally within 4 years from the time when the reason for annulment is discovered by the person who is seeking the annulment). Judgments of nullity are granted rarely--only if the person requesting one can prove to a judge that one or both of the spouses did not have the legal capacity to enter into a marriage; that the other spouse defrauded them or forced them into the marriage; or that the other spouse has been (and likely will be) unable to consummate the marriage.

Marriages into which adults entered freely, with full mental capacity, without defrauding each other, must end through the ordinary process of dissolution (i.e. divorce), rather than annulment.

Continue reading "Annulment in California" »

As a Santa Rosa divorce attorney, I have been following the news reports about the divorce of basketball player Dwayne Wade. Last week, newspaper accounts detailed the clash between Wade's wife and the Family Court judge who is adjudicating the Wades' divorce trial. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the judge issued an arrest warrant for Sioghvaughn Wade after she did not show up for a scheduled court hearing. When Ms. Wade's attorney, who had arrived for the delayed hearing, was not able to reach her client, the judge reportedly commented that Ms. Wade was difficult to reach whenever things didn't "go according to Ms. Wade's way."

It is rare for a judge in a divorce trial to order the arrest of one of the parties for failing to appear at a hearing. The reports suggest that the Wade trial has been a long and very contentious one; however, in any trial, judges expect their orders to be followed, and don't take kindly to parties who waste the court's time. In family court, while people who don't show up for scheduled hearings don't usually get arrested, they do face negative consequences.

If you are involved in a Family Law trial, you should try to show up early for any hearings--they are likely to be stressful enough even without the added stress caused by being late, not finding parking, or not being able to find the right courtroom. During the hearings, you should be careful not to interrupt the judge. You should not interrupt the other party, either, when it's their turn to speak. If the attorneys are asking you questions, you should listen to the questions carefully and let the lawyers finish speaking before you answer. If you do so, the court clerk will be able to record the proceedings accurately; you will not be admonished by the judge to stop speaking or slow down (a common request by judges, but one that often gets people even more flustered); and you will come across as a reasonable, cooperative person. In Family Court cases, especially when child custody issues are involved, judges (who are entrusted to gauge credibility and to determine what is in the best interest of the children) are positively impressed by people who come across as reasonable, cooperative, and able to keep their impulses and emotions under control.

Continue reading "Helping Your Case in Family Law Hearings" »

A recent report by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Pew Research Center considers the "New Economics of Marriage" in the U.S." The authors of the report compared data collected in 1970 and 2007. According to their analysis, in 2007 far more men were married to women whose educational level and income were higher than their husbands'. Due to this shift, the authors note, the institution of marriage increasingly provides an economic advantage to men. This shift is likely to be echoed by a corresponding "new economics" of divorce.

The report shows that among men and women between the ages of 33 and 40 who were born in the U.S., more women than men now have college diplomas. 28% of the married women who fell into this age group were married to men whose educational level was lower than their own. Although generally the level of education attained by a person was strongly correlated to income, in 2007 women's earnings were still lower than those of comparable men (although the gap was substantially smaller than it had been in 1970).

However, the report also cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which showed that nearly three fourths of the rise of unemployment in the recent downturn has been among men.

These new statistics about marital status and economic power are likely to be reflected in interesting ways in issues that arise during divorce--for example, in the areas of spousal and child support awards. In California, spousal support, especially, is greatly dependent on the financial status and earning power of each spouse. The future might hold fewer awards of spousal support overall, and a greater number of cases in which wives may be required to help support their ex-husbands.

Continue reading "The "New Economics of Marriage," and Some Implications for Divorce" »

People have many misconceptions about divorce in California. One common mistaken belief is that, after a spouse files a petition for divorce, the couple's divorce will become final six months from the time of the filing. In reality, the divorce becomes final only if the parties undertake a series of steps that ends with a final judgment of divorce.

Even once the spouses are granted a divorce decree, the divorce is not finalized until the proper papers have been filed. Occasionally, people who had believed for years that they were divorced, and acted accordingly, discover that their final divorce judgment was never issued. In such situations, Section 2346(a) of the California Family Code gives a court discretion to issue a retroactive order called a "nunc pro tunc" judgment.

In Latin, "nunc pro tunc" means "now for then"; in the legal context, a "nunc pro tunc" decree it is a way to correct an earlier mistake. The nunc pro tunc divorce decree is intended to enable people to take advantage of any benefits that they would have gotten if the divorce had been finalized properly at the appropriate time. However, the judge presiding over a case is not obligated to agree to such an order. The parties requesting a nunc pro tunc decree must demonstrate to the court that the papers required for a final dissolution had not been signed, filed, and entered solely due to "mistake, negligence, or inadvertence."

Continue reading "Finalizing A Divorce in California" »

In today's difficult economic climate, new financial stresses may add to already existing strains and lead more couples to divorce. However, the same economic climate makes it more difficult for separating spouses to set up and maintain two households. One possible solution to this dilemma is the California option of "status-only" divorce.

California Family Code Section 2337 allows couples to "bifurcate" their divorce so that their marital status is legally changed as soon as possible under the law, while all the related issues are reserved--meaning that the resolution of the other issues (whether by mutual agreement between the spouses or by court order) is postponed to a later date. A status-only divorce would allow people to get remarried, for example, before child custody and visitation, child support, property division, and spousal support were ever addressed.

If the people intend to continue to live together, however, at least for some time, their goal in seeking a status-only divorce is probably not remarriage, but the psychological benefit of clarity as to where they stand in terms of their relationship. They may not be able to afford the housing, childcare, and other costs that separate households would entail; they may choose to live together in order to keep the children from having to split their lives between two households; however, they may still want the legal decision that renders them single again.

Status-only divorces have significant effects on a variety of issues, including health insurance, pension plans, bank accounts, wills, Social Security benefits, and other benefits that married couples enjoy in California but may not even be aware of (for example probate benefits). If you are considering a status-only divorce, you should discuss your case with an experienced California family law attorney, who can help you choose the path that would best protect your (and your children's) interests.

Various media outlets have been reporting that Larry King and his wife both filed for divorce, in dueling petitions, ending a marriage of more than 10 years. In California, marriages of longer than 10 years are considered "long-term marriages."

When marriages end, in California either spouse may be entitled to spousal support, if his or her economic situation warrants it. If the spouses don't reach an agreement and instead ask the court to determine whether spousal support is appropriate, for which spouse, and in what amount, the court must consider a variety of factors--including the income and earning capacity of each spouse; the needs of each spouse, (given the standard of living reached during the marriage); the age and health of the spouses; and any contributions that one spouse may have made toward the other spouse's education. Under the California Family Code, the judge is not required to award any spousal support, and the stated goal of the law is that both spouses should try to become self-sufficient within a reasonable amount of time.

When marriages of shorter duration end, some couples choose to terminate immediately the court's power to make any determination about spousal support. Other couples "reserve" their right to return to court even years after the divorce is finalized, if circumstances such as illness or unemployment force them to need support from the other spouse. In most situations, the family court judge will accept the agreement reached by the parties. However, if the spouses ending a long-term marriage choose to completely waive the right to any possible spousal support, the judge involved may inquire into the justification for that decision.

If you are in the process of getting a divorce after a marriage of more than 10 years, you should consider discussing your situation with an experienced Sonoma County divorce attorney who can guide you through what is likely to be an emotionally and economically difficult process. Many people have vague or downright mistaken ideas about what the law calls for or allows in divorce. Understanding some of the presumptions and goals of California law might actually lower the level of contentiousness that develops when people think that they will "win" exactly what they wish for.