Family Law Section

CFLR will present the biennial Advanced Family Law Course (AFLC) in June 2025. This comprehensive and intensive program showcases an all-star faculty of justices, judges, and lawyers. Read more

CFLR will present the biennial Advanced Family Law Course (AFLC) in June 2025. This comprehensive and intensive program showcases an all-star faculty of justices, judges, and lawyers. Read more

The California Lawyers Association Family Law Executive Committee is happy to announce that in partnership with the California Family Law Report (CFLR) we will be offering several scholarships this year and next for licensed attorneys and current Family Law Section members who are experiencing financial difficulties and would be able to better their Family Law practice by attending a designated CFLR family law program. Eligibility Criteria To qualify for the CFLR & FLEXCOM Specialist Exam Need-Based Scholarship, applicants must: Be… Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to set aside a default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). That provision mandates relief when a default results from an attorney’s mistake. The trial court denied the motion based on its mistaken view that litigation strategy does not qualify as “attorney fault” under section 473(b). Read more

Learn a bit more about our members and why they find FLEXCOM to be a great opportunity. This month we are featuring our Vice Chair, Leslie Abrigo. Question: Share a little about your journey to becoming a family law lawyer, starting your own practice, and motivation for any specialty. Answer: I started my own law firm as soon as I passed the Bar because I wanted to build something that reflected my values—strategic advocacy, client education, and long-term planning. Over… Read more

In this parentage action under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), the Court of Appeal reversed a family court order denying reimbursement for in vitro fertilization (IVF) costs. Father had asked the family court to require his co-parent, Mother, to pay half of the IVF procedure used to conceive their child. The family court declined, reasoning it lacked authority to order Mother to repay pregnancy-related expenses incurred before she filed the parentage action. On appeal, Father argued Family Code section 7637 permitted such reimbursement. The Court of Appeal agreed with Father. Read more

In this parentage action under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), the Court of Appeal reversed a family court order denying reimbursement for in vitro fertilization (IVF) costs. Father had asked the family court to require his co-parent, Mother, to pay half of the IVF procedure used to conceive their child. The family court declined, reasoning it lacked authority to order Mother to repay pregnancy-related expenses incurred before she filed the parentage action. On appeal, Father argued Family Code section 7637 permitted such reimbursement. The Court of Appeal agreed with Father. Read more

This case involves the standing of an alleged father. Alleged father appealed the trial court’s exit order that his visits be monitored. Appellant was granted alleged father status but never raised his status to legal/biological or presumed. Alleged fathers are granted party-like status to allow them an opportunity to elevate their parentage status. Since father never did -and so never achieved actual party status- he had no standing to appeal the visitation order. Appeal dismissed for lack of standing. Read more

AB 2024 – Domestic Violence Restraining Orders The vast majority of ex parte DVROs are sought without assistance of counsel.  Court clerks sometimes refuse to accept forms because of missing information or other errors on any one of the required forms. This creates a delay in getting the request to the judicial officer who has the power to grant or deny the protective order.  This bill amends Family Code section 6300 so that a clerk may not reject an ex parte DVRO request if submitted Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a minute order that dismissed the trial court case because that minute order was not appealable. A separate judgment was required. The Court of Appeal did, however, indicate that they would hear the appeal once the judgment was entered. It noted that parties “and attorneys deserve clarity when it comes to entry of judgment” because a “timely notice of appeal is…a ‘jurisdictional’ prerequisite for litigants and the date of entry of judgment must be known to calculate the deadline.” Read more