Recent Family Law Cases

FAMILY LAW (Through 2/17/2026)
By:  Andrew Botros, CFLS, CALS
The precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Author’s note is italicized.

In re Marriage of Starr
1/22/26 CA 1/4: A172153 – J. Goldman
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A172153M.PDF

The Court of Appeal reversed a date-of-separation order, holding that the trial court erred by treating the date of separation alleged in the wife’s amended dissolution petition as a binding judicial admission where the husband had not accepted the allegation and both parties had conducted themselves in litigation as if the date remained disputed.

Wife filed a dissolution petition in December 2020, originally alleging a March 2009 date of separation. After retaining new counsel, she filed an amended petition in June 2021changing the date to June 2, 2020. However, Wife consistently asserted through multiple subsequent filings that the actual date of separation was in 2012. She filed a request to bifurcate the date of separation issue, supported by a declaration alleging a 2012 separation. The parties filed a joint case management statement identifying Petitioner’s claim that the date of separation is in 2012 as a contested issue for trial. Husband, for his part, maintained throughout that the date of separation was in September 2020. Neither party ever treated the June 2020 date alleged in the amended petition as conclusive.

At the start of a bifurcated trial in July 2024, the trial court sua sponte raised the pleading issue, announcing a tentative decision that Wife was bound by the June 2, 2020 date in her amended petition. Neither party had raised the issue. When Husband’s counsel was asked why he had not raised it, he acknowledged that he didn’t actually look to verify what the Wife’s last pleaded date of separation was. After extended colloquy, the court held Wife to the June 2020 date. Husband accepted June 2, 2020 rather than proceed with a trial limited to the three-month window between June and September 2020.

The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that a judicial admission presupposes that the adverse party does not contradict the allegation—it is ordinarily a factual allegation by one party that is admitted by the opposing party such that the factual allegation is removed from the issues in the litigation because the parties agree as to its truth. Here, Husband never treated the June 2020 date as conclusive. He knew that Wife intended to assert a 2012 date. He never argued judicial admission before trial, and his trial briefs consistently maintained the separation date was in September 2020. His belated, on-the-fly acceptance of the June 2020 date—after the court’s sua sponte ruling left the parties unprepared for a narrowed trial—did not retroactively convert the allegation into a binding judicial admission.

The court also declined Wife’s request to reassign the case to a different judge on remand, finding that the trial court’s error was legal rather than reflective of bias or impartiality.

In re Marriage of Allen
2/6/26 CA 2/6: B338855 – J. Baltodano
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B338855.PDF

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Husband’s request to enforce an alleged accord and satisfaction of child support arrearages, holding that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past-due child support arrearages even after the children have reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place.

After Wife remarried in 2002, the court ordered $2,500 per month in child support and $1,000 per month toward arrearages. In 2020, almost two decades later, Husband emailed Wife to discuss resolving his arrearages, which totaled approximately $545,000 including interest. Wife agreed to accept $272,500—half the total—split into several payments. Husband made the payments, then asked Wife to sign a stipulated accord and satisfaction prepared by his attorney waiving all remaining arrearages. Wife declined to sign. Husband filed an RFO asking the court to find a valid accord and satisfaction. The trial court denied the request.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court first held there was no bona fide dispute—a prerequisite to an accord and satisfaction. Husband did not deny the existence of arrearages, question the amount, or raise any issue concerning the validity of the judgment. He simply offered Wife less than the full amount in exchange for a release of the rest. The court found this essentially the same situation as In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1203.

Finally, the court rejected Husband’s waiver and estoppel defenses. On waiver, Wife’s behavior was inconsistent with relinquishment—she repeatedly advised Husband of the outstanding amount and stated she would seek the full amount absent a final agreement. On estoppel, there was no evidence Husband was harmed by paying an amount he undisputedly owed. The court also declined to create a carve out for arrearages where the children have reached majority, reasoning that doing so “would reward a noncustodial parent who is able to thwart their child support obligations until the child reaches majority.”

Author’s Note: Practitioners should also note the court’s careful application of the accord and satisfaction elements—a parent who simply cannot or will not pay the full amount does not have a “bona fide dispute” about what is owed. If you are attempting to waive child support arrears, your stipulation should explicitly recite that there is a bona fide dispute and that the parties are resolving their dispute under the principles of accord and satisfaction.