Family Law Section

In this partially published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s determination regarding the non-binding nature of the 2010 Hindu marriage ceremony between V.K. and V.S. under India’s Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Consequently, as this marriage was not “valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted,” it also lacked validity in California under Family Code section 308. The Hindu Marriage Act's inability to legally bind V.K. because he was a non-domiciliary of India and a permanent resident of the United States was dispositive here. Read more

Recent dependency law cases, current through 10/21/2023. Written by John Nieman. Read more

Recent family law cases, current through 10/25/2023. Written by Andrew Botros, CFLS Read more

Each year, FLEXCOM tracks family law bills and meets about four times before the end of the legislative session in September to discuss the bills. As part of that process, FLEXCOM members contact the authors’ office to obtain information about bills, then FLEXCOM meets to discuss the bills. Read more

Join us for Anatomy of a Trial, taking place October 13 in Oakland and October 27 in Los Angeles. Read more

California Lawyers Association’s Family Law Section presents an exciting in-person one-day seminar on the various aspects of conducting a family law trial. Each live program is presented by: Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s post judgment order granting a request from Father to enroll the children into public school. At the time he made that request, however, Mother had sole legal custody. Since Mother had the sole “right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to health education, and welfare of” the children under Family Code section 3006, Father was not permitted to request that the trial court order Mother to enroll the children in public school. To obtain joint legal custody, he would have to show a significant change in circumstances. The record, however, did not reflect that the trial court made such a finding. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion. Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed an attorney fee and costs order after Husband argued that 1) the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing; 2) the trial court did not consider the required factors as set forth in Family Code section 2030 et. seq; and 3) the trial court’s ultimate order of $25,000 was not supported by substantial evidence. Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal considered whether a DVTRO could only be modified within the confines of Code of Civil Procedure section 533. Read more

Recent dependency law cases, current through 6/15/2023. Written by John Nieman. Read more