Family Law News Executive Editor: Dawn Gray, email@example.com
Family Law News, Assistant Editor: Shauna Chastain, firstname.lastname@example.org
Family Law News Monthly Editor, Jason J. Elter, email@example.com
The Family Law Section of the California Lawyers Association (formerly housed at the State Bar of California) hosted “Family Law Essentials 2018,” a continuing education event
for members of the California Bar at the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians’ reservation on April 16. This was the first time, in the Family Law Section’s 40-year existence,
that an education program has been hosted by a tribe on tribal lands.
In another groundbreaking effort to reach across jurisdictions, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Tribal Court Chief Judge Christine Williams and local El Dorado County Superior
Court Judge Vicki Lynn Ashworth were guest speakers. For its 2018 Family Law Essentials Program, the Family Law Section wanted to focus on bringing quality educational programing to
rural areas and highlight local judges. The other esteemed presenters were: Honorable Mark Juhas from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Honorable Sue Alexander from the Superior
Court of Alameda County, Honorable Dale Wells from the Superior Court of Riverside County, Barbara Hammers, Certified Family Law Specialist from Los Angeles County, and David Lederman,
Certified Family Law Specialist from Contra Costa County.
The program content was “FAMILY LAW ESSENTIALS 2018; Making a Real Difference—Candid Discussions between Bench and Bar Regarding Custody in Today’s Courts.” It included lively discussion
and real world analysis between prominent family law bench officers and certified family law specialists as they addressed paramount custody issues. Topics included factors influencing a
court’s decision when fashioning parenting plans, the effective use of custody evaluations, how the family law court system is integrating the changing views, attitudes, and law toward
substance use with families, approaches and strategies related to move away requests, practical approaches to child support related issues, and the nuances and hard facts of dealing with
domestic violence issues when children are involved.
“Judge Williams was great, she explained how gaming revenue worked in child support, what some of the challenges tribal courts and tribes face and generally she provided much needed
information about the whole tribal court system. Most importantly, she demonstrated that she is an excellent, thoughtful judicial officer and that the tribal court system is out there and
should be respected and embraced,” said Honorable Mark Juhas, Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Candid Discussions Between Bench and Bar Regarding Custody in Today's courts
6 Hours of MCLE & Legal Specialization Credit
Monday, September 24th
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Monday, October 22nd
The State Bar of California
845 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Schedule | Essential Info | Brochure | Reg form
This program includes lively discussion and real world analysis between prominent family law bench officers and certified family law specialists as they address the paramount
custody issues of today. Topics will include factors influencing a court’s decision when fashioning parenting plans, the effective use of custody evaluations, how the family law
court system is integrating the changing views, attitudes, and law towards substance use with families today, approaches and strategies related to move away requests, practical
approaches to child support related issues, and the nuances and hard facts of dealing with domestic violence issues when children are involved.
Thursday, June 14, 2018, 12 noon - 1 p.m.
This program offers 1 MCLE credit. You must register in advance to participate.
Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) confirmed that the same general rules that govern other civil trials apply in full force in family law trials, including the hearsay rule. That holding
did not explicitly encompass family law and motion hearings.
Elkins gave rise to Family Code § 217, setting in place obligations for practitioners and the Court for the receipt of live testimony in family court law and motion hearings and trials.
In March 2018, the Court of Appeal confirmed in
Marriage of Swain that parties have a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses during family court law and motion hearings.
We will teach you the procedural rules that practitioners and the Court must know in order to ensure that we comply with dictates of Elkins and its progeny.
Speakers: Jackie Flynn and Liat Sadler
Moderator: Kelly Robbins
Thurdsday, July 25, 2018, 12 noon - 1 p.m.
This program offers 1 MCLE credit. You must register in advance to participate.
The speakers will discuss the purpose of making motions in limine and when to use them in the context of family law proceedings.
Speakers: Stephen Hamilton and Lisa McCall
Moderator: Leena S. Hingnikar
NOTE: The entire opinion of each of the following cases may be located at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm
The parties' retention of the marriage license did not invalidate the marriage after the solemnization ceremony had taken place. See: Chaney v. Netterstrom 18 DJDAR 2212 (3-8-18) (DCA2)
Garnished court-ordered child support paid to benefit children outside a family is properly treated as income in determining a family's eligibility for CalWORKs cash aid. See: Christensen v. Lightbourne, 15 Cal.App.5th 1239, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 779, 10/6/2017 [Review Granted 1/10/18]
FC §7612(c) allowing a child to have more than two parents only applies to biological mothers, adoptive parents and presumed parents. See: In re M.A., 20 Cal.App.5th 899, Cal.Rptr.3d, 18 DJDAR 1971, 2/26/2018
Presumed parent status under FC §7611(d) requires that petitioner demonstrate a parental relationship with child. See: W.S. v. S.T., 20 Cal.App.5th 132, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 756, 2/1/2018
The fact that petitioner was child's biological father did not entitle him to visitation with child under FC §3100. See: W.S. v. S.T., 20 Cal.App.5th 132, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 756, 2/1/2018
Order modifying parenting plan did not amount to a change in custody. DVRO properly renewed where Mother's apprehension of further DV was genuine and reasonable. See: Rybolt v. Riley, 20 Cal.App.5th 864, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 576, 1/31/2018
FC §6203 does not impose strict liability-intent to injure is required for DVRO. Damaging property while alone and venting some anger did not warrant issuance of DVRO. W’s reading and disclosing H’s text messages to a few friends was not “disturbing the peace” under the DVPA. See: Fischer v. Fischer, 18 DJDAR, 3/23/2018
Full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution and res judicata barred CA court from adding interest to UT s/s and c/s arrearages judgment. See: In re Marriage of Connolly, 20 Cal.App.5th 395, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 890, 2/9/2018
Children and the Law
W&IC §786(e) providing for sealing of all records related to dismissed or unsustained petitions, applied to minor's case because it was not final and pending on appeal. See: In re W.R., 18 DJDAR 3319, 4/16/2018
Prop. 57 may be applied retroactively by granting defendant a conditional reversal of his or her sentence dependent on the outcome of a juvenile transfer hearing on remand. See: People v. Vela, 18 DJDAR 2915, 3/28/2018
After a permanent plan of adoption is selected for a child, W&IC §366.3 does not mandate a particular consequence if adequate services are not provided. See: In re Christian K. 18 DJDAR 2657 (3-21-18) (DCA 1)
Dependency jurisdiction reversed where, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, child was not at substantial risk for serious harm in the future. See: In re E.D. 18 DJDAR 2733 (3-1-18) (DCA 2)
Jurisdictional findings and dispositional order reversed where a reasonable 12 year old like M would believe he was not free to leave interviews with police, and police did not give Miranda warnings during questioning. See: In re I.F. 18 DJDAR 1728 (2-22-18) (DCA 3)
Where youngest child was not placed with his older siblings, Mother's reunification services with older siblings could not be limited to six months under WIC §361.5(a)(1)(C). See: : W.P. v. Super. Ct. (San Bernardino Children and Family Services) 18 DJDAR (2-6-18) (DCA4)
Sanchez did not bar the admission of a social services report in the absence of its primary author. See: J.H. v. Super. Ct. (San Luis Obispo County Dept. of Social Services), 20 Cal.App.5th 530, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 18 DJDAR 1524, 2/15/2018
Even though defendant's case was tried before Sanchez was decided, failure of defendant's counsel to make a hearsay objection constituted forfeiture where pre-Sanchez cases indicated that an expert's testimony to hearsay was objectionable. See: People v. Perez, 18 DJDAR 3253, 4/12/2018
Expert witness, a coroner, violated Sanchez when she testified to the case-specific statements of another coroner; error harmless. See: : People v. Gorton 18 DJDAR 2059 (3-5-18) (Cal.SC)