Santa Rosa Family Lawyer Blog

The California State Bar Newsletter recently reported a child custody case concerning a parent with a mental illness. In February, a local court decided that "parental rights can be legally terminated when a parent poses a danger to his child, even if the danger results from a treatable mental disability." This ruling could have significant impact for parents in California who are currently involved in custody disputes.

Implications of California Family Code § 7827 on Mental Disability

In this recent case, a married mother and father adopted a child. Before the parents were married, the father had a diagnosed mental illness but managed his condition with medication, which "allowed him to function normally." After the parents adopted the child, the father stopped taking his medication, and his "mental condition deteriorated" so substantially that it "seriously impacted his relationship with his wife and child." In fact, the negative effects of his mental state led his wife to file for a restraining order.

Ultimately, the mother filed a divorce petition, and the court awarded her sole custody of their minor child. In addition, the mother filed a petition to terminate the father's parental rights because of his mental disability.

Under California Family Code section 7827, a parent's rights can be terminated when he is classified as "mentally disabled" according to law. In order to be mentally disabled under the statute, the parent must "suffer a mental incapacity or disorder" that leaves him "unable to care for and control the child adequately." According to the statute, a parent's mental disability can only lead to the termination of his parental rights when he is both mentally disabled and is "likely to remain so in the foreseeable future."

The court ruled against the father. In terminating the father's parental rights, the court determined that the father had a mental disability that left him unable to adequately care for his child. In addition, the court reasoned that his disability was likely to prevent his adequate care for the child in the foreseeable future despite the possibility that he could be treated with medication. In other words, the court found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the father's parental rights.

Do Mentally Disabled Parents Face a Courtroom Bias?

California is one of many states in which mental illness can lead to a loss of custody or the termination of parental rights. According to Mental Health America, on average, when parents with mental illness face custody issues in court, between 70 and 80 percent lose their parental rights. Further studies show that in families where one parent suffers from a mental illness, in more than two-thirds of those cases, the minor child is not being raised by the parent with the mental disability.

Last year, a USA Today article reported that certain barriers still exist for parents with mental illness, and that our legal system "is not adequately protecting the rights of parents" who suffer from certain disabilities. The article cited a report by the National Council on Disability, which indicated that parents with disabilities, both physical and mental, are "more likely to lose custody of their children after divorce," and that they face substantial difficulties with biases in the courtroom.

Often, caseworkers worry about child abuse and neglect when minor children are being raised by a parent with a serious mental illness. However, certain disability advocates argue that instead of focusing on the "best interest of the child standard" alone, the courts should take into account that support for mentally disabled parents "may be all that's needed to eliminate risks or lessen problems."

Kidnapping victims often face challenges when reuniting with family members.

Earlier this week three women who were kidnapped over a decade ago and held in a Cleveland, Ohio home were able to escape. These women are currently reuniting with their families after long periods of isolation. According to psychologists, reintroducing individuals who have been held captive to people they knew before can be a very difficult process.

In response to news of the women's escape CNN.com republished a 2009 article discussing the reunification of two children with their parents after being kidnapped and held captive for extended periods of time.

One of the children featured in the piece was Richard K. Wilfong Chekevdia who was six years old when his mother abducted him in violation of a court order granting joint custody to both parents. The boy was forced to live in seclusion for over two years before he was discovered.

Military personnel also report that reunification with family members after deployment is the most stressful aspect of separation.

A survey of military spouses of deployed Army soldiers with young children also reveals that families experience challenges when reuniting after a stressful or traumatic experience. Of the military spouses interviewed, 75 percent of respondents said that the return from deployment was the most stressful stage of separation for the family. The military spouses described family members as having conflicted emotions.

Experts believe that children involved in custody disputes are susceptible to stress and anxiety when reuniting with a parent they have not seen for a period of time.

According to experts, in some cases, children who find themselves in the midst of their parents' custody dispute may face similar challenges as kidnapping victims and military personnel when reuniting with a parent they have not seen for a long period of time. While children who are involved in custody disputes usually don't experience the same level of severe isolation and trauma as these group, children who are involved in custody disputes are sometimes encouraged to develop feelings of hate or resentment against a parent. At times, the parent who is teaching their child to hate their other parent may employ extreme tactics.

On March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. The following day, the Supreme Court heard arguments addressing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law defining marriage as between opposite sexes.

Proposition 8, which was passed in the November 2008 California elections, amended the California's Constitution to specify that the State only recognized marriages between a man and woman as valid.

When Proposition 8 was passed in 2008, it resulted in the overturning of a ruling by the California Supreme Court, which found that same-sex couples had the constitutional right to get married. While Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriages going forward, a subsequent court ruling allowed same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008 to remain valid.

After its passage, Proposition 8 faced numerous legal challenges. In August of 2010, the United States District Court for California held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. In February of 2012, this decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Proponents of Proposition 8 filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, requesting the country's highest court to rule on the matter. This petition was granted in December of 2012.

The Court heard oral arguments in this case on March 26 and is slated to issue a ruling by July of 2013. During oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that banning same-sex marriage posed an immediate harm to those same-sex couples. He also mentioned that the effects of the ban on the children of same-sex couples should be considered.

Same-sex divorces are rising
Historically, same-sex marriages have had higher rates of success than marriages involving different-sex partners. However, according to a recent New York Magazine article, studies show that the same-sex couples are experiencing a divorce boom, with rates approaching those of their different-sex counterparts.

The process for securing a same-sex divorce can be confusing

Just as the laws surrounding same-sex marriage are in flux, so are the laws surrounding same-sex divorce. Same-sex divorces are complicated because of the differences amongst states and between states and the federal government regarding the legal status of same-sex relationships. The ability to secure a divorce is critical because it has implications on end of life decisions, inheritance, and child custody.

Many states, including California during its same-sex marriage window, do not impose residency requirements for getting married within the state. However, those same states have residency requirements for filing a divorce. This poses huge burdens on couples that reside in other states where same-sex marriages and divorces are not recognized, and who cannot afford to move and establish residency where they married in order to file for divorce.

Furthermore, states and the federal government differ in their treatment of taxes, pensions, and inheritance of same-sex couples. This makes the distribution of assets at the end of a marriage difficult.

Securing a same-sex divorce can be complicated, but a family law attorney can help navigate you through it.

RELATED BLOG POSTS
Considering Filing For Divorce? Should You Spy on Your Spouse?
What happens when an ex-spouse files for bankruptcy?

Private investigation firms have long offered divorce assistance as a primary service. However, these services can be very expensive and can even cost more than the legal fees associated with filing for a divorce. Because filing for a divorce often comes with financial strains, many individuals who would like to hire a private detective to spy on their spouse, simply cannot afford to do so.

SPYING ON YOUR SPOUSE IS EASIER THAN EVER
However, in recent years more and more information is communicated through email, smartphones, and social media. In fact, a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that 92 percent of lawyers had observed increases in evidence from smartphones over the past three years. The information gathered from smartphones included text messages, emails, call histories, and GPS location information.

In addition, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, spyware that was once only accessible to governments and corporations are now cheap and readily available to the general public. According to the article, companies selling GPS trackers, nanny cams, and other spy gear reported significant increases in sales. For example, BrickHouse Security reported that sales of its GPS tracker have nearly doubled each year, for the past three years. Another company, SpygearGadgets.com, said sales of their GPS tracking devices had increased 80 percent in 2012 and their nanny cams and hidden camera sales rose 40 percent.

A CALIFORNIA DIVORCE ATTORNEY CAN HELP YOU MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION

An individual who is considering filing for a divorce may want to spy on their spouse in order to obtain various kinds of evidence. Spying may reveal evidence of:

• Hidden assets
• Infidelity
• Neglectful or abusive treatment of children

However, just because it is easier than ever to obtain evidence for a divorce case by spying on a spouse, doesn't mean it is the best approach in every circumstance. An attorney can help an individual who is considering filing for a divorce to determine what evidence will be helpful and the best way to go about obtaining the information.

For instance, an individual who is considering filing for divorce may want to know whether their spouse was unfaithful during the marriage. But, this information is typically irrelevant to a divorce proceeding in California. Under California law, all divorces are considered "no fault" divorces. The individual seeking a divorce does not have to prove that their spouse did something wrong. In addition, the court will not penalize a cheating spouse by awarding them less property or requiring them to pay more support.

In addition, the privacy laws surrounding spying on a spouse are currently in flux and not clearly defined. Overzealous spying can subject an individual to stalking, wiretap, cybercrime, and trespass laws, as well as civil suits. Therefore, it is important for anyone who is considering spying on their spouse to consult with an attorney who will be able to navigate this emerging area of law.

RELATED BLOG POSTS:
Social Media in Divorce
Steps to Take After a Divorce

Health insurance is a hot topic these days, spurred on by the passage on March 23, 2010, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), more commonly known as Obamacare. The primary purpose of the PPACA is to reduce the number of uninsured Americans while reducing overall medical costs. On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the PPACA in the case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. With all the recent developments in this area, it is important to know how health insurance coverage plays out in the divorce process.

If both you and your spouse are employed and maintained health insurance coverage through your respective employers, then maintaining that arrangement should be addressed during divorce negotiations and specifically stated in the marital settlement agreement or divorce decree. If, however, you maintain health insurance through your spouse's employer, once the divorce is finalized, you will no longer be eligible for coverage. Address the issue early on so that you do not end up with a gap in coverage, which could jeopardize your eligibility for health insurance.

There are several options available. If your spouse's employer has more than 20 employees, then you are eligible to apply for continued health insurance coverage under the federal law known as COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act), passed by Congress in 1986 to provide for the continuation of group health coverage that might otherwise be terminated. A divorced spouse may elect COBRA coverage for a maximum of 36 months, but be warned: COBRA is usually more expensive. Under COBRA, you will be responsible for the entire amount of the premium plus two percent (2%) for administrative costs.

If your spouse's company has fewer than 20 employees, a second option in the state of California is to elect coverage under the California plan know as Cal-COBRA, which is basically an extension of the federal COBRA law for California residents who do not qualify for federal coverage. Cal-COBRA is "a mini COBRA health insurance plan set up by the California government." See http://www.cobrainsurancedirect.com. You may elect Cal-COBRA for a maximum of 36 months, but it too is expensive. Under the plan, you will be responsible for the entire amount of the premium plus ten percent (10%) for administrative costs. Given the cost and time limit associated with COBRA and Cal-COBRA, you may want to check into private plans, which may be cheaper and more permanent. If you are employed, a third option may be to obtain health insurance coverage through your employer.

If children are involved, it is important to keep in mind their health insurance coverage issues, including which parent will provide coverage and who will pay the co-pays and other out-of-pocket medical expenses. Such issues should be raised during divorce settlement negotiations and made part of the marital settlement agreement or divorce decree.

Divorcing couples face many pitfalls and trials during the process, both in the divorce proceedings and the emotional strife that accompanies it. In the modern age, where seemingly everyone has at least one social network account, it is easy to reconnect with childhood friends, first romances or college roommates. However, social media networks also present difficulties during a divorce where you can see pictures of your spouse looking very friendly with someone new or read his or her status update about going out to dinner with friends when you believed they could not make the children's school event because of work.

When going through a divorce, you need to use social media very cautiously. In fact, you should assume that every tweet or status update could be used by your spouse against you. Even if you are no longer "friends" with your spouse on Facebook, "followed" by them on Twitter or "connected" to them on LinkedIn, it may still be possible for your spouse to see the information that you post. Even with your privacy settings at the highest level, the information posted may make its way back to your spouse one way or another. Mutual friends, acquaintances or family might be able to access your posts. In addition, the confusing privacy settings on sites like Facebook could lead to your information going beyond the friends you intended. For example, on Facebook, if a friend "likes," "comments" or "shares" your status, then that person's friends can often see the status as well.

If you do use social media and are in the midst of a divorce, then you should consider the following:

· If the thought is not too difficult, consider deleting your social media profiles. It may seem like a drastic step, but the difficulty of "rebuilding" your social network is likely much less than the cost of your spouse finding unfortunate information on your social network page or finding emotionally damaging information about your spouse's life.

· If you cannot bring yourself to delete your social media accounts, then you should at least think twice about posting anything. While you may initially think that it is okay to post a picture of yourself giving a toast at your friend's wedding, your spouse may argue that it is an example of heavy drinking in front of your children. Such evidence could be used by your spouse to hurt your case for custody, regardless of the truth.

· Go through your friends and followers on all of your social media accounts, carefully considering which connections to keep. You should probably remove access to anyone who you think might share your information with your spouse. It is important to remember that our spouse can subpoena anyone to testify in your divorce or custody proceedings.

· Be careful about changing privacy settings. Facebook, in particular, has a habit of changing privacy settings that could allow your information to become more widely available. Constantly checking your privacy settings can help to prevent any unintentional sharing of information.

· Never, ever, ever share conversations that you had with your attorney. Sharing your attorney's legal advice could waive the attorney-client privilege, which could allow your private communications with your attorney to be used against you.

When one parent wants to relocate with the minor child in a custody case, they will usually need either the consent of the other parent, or they will need a court order granting the move away orders request. This issue comes up often when one parent wants to move out-of-state for a new job or because they are getting remarried.

Issues that come up in a move away request are how the move would affect the minor child or children involved, how visitation and/or custody would be affected by the move, the reason for the move, and like all child custody matters, whether it is in the best interest of the child to make the move.

If a parent wants to move, it is not impossible to simply get the other parent to consent to the move. The law usually requires notification to the other parent of the proposed move before a court action is filed, and it is important to offer a reasonable visitation schedule to the other parent, since a move will usually make it more difficult for the other parent to maintain the current visitation schedule.

If the other parent does not consent to the move away request, then you will usually need to file a request with the court to be able to move with the minor child or children, unless a prior order already gives you the right to change residency without the consent of the other parent. In a court hearing, there are some presumptions that favor the parent with primary custody of a child. However, those presumptions can be overcome, as it is important to make a clear case to the court why the move will benefit the minor child or children.

One of the most important factors is which parent has been providing a stable environment for the child. Other important factors are comparing the schools - for example is the new school better for the child than the old school - and also community statistics. A judge is more likely to grant a move away request where the parent is moving somewhere with a lower crime rate and better schools, than the other way around.

An important caveat to remember is that a move away request is not automatic, even if you are the primary custodial parent. A request should be made with plenty of time to spare before the planned move; this is not something to request at the last minute. A court may not allow you to move with the child, which means you could still move, but custody would switch and the child would stay with the other parent.

Also, a move away court dispute can be very costly, so it makes better financial sense for parents to try to work out an arrangement that allows the move but maintains sufficient contact with the other parent. With modern technology, this is much easier, with parents able to video chat with their children over the internet from anywhere in the country, or even the world. Also, often the parent who doesn't have as much visitation time during the school year after the move could have most of the time during summer and holidays.

Last caveat, do not try to move away just to get an advantage in a custody case. If you aren't doing something with the child's best interest in mind, that could really backfire in a custody case.

How does a couple going through a divorce go about dividing retirement accounts in a community property state? California is a "community property" state which has critical implications on how all property is divided in the event of a divorce. Essentially, in states with general legal rules like ours, all property acquired during a marriage or earned while the partners were married is deemed owned by both--it is "marital property."

This idea seems simple enough for major assets--like house or a car--but what about more unique items, like retirement accounts? As a general rule, in most situations, vested retirement account benefits (those that are already earned) are considered community property and shared during divorce. It is important to understand that this is different than other forms of payments which are not split this way. For example, many government benefits, like worker's compensation or social security, are not divided up between couples in a divorce.

Understanding how retirement accounts might be divided up and used following a divorce requires first appreciating the difference between different plans. Most notably, a retirement plan either has "defined benefits" or "defined contributions." As the name implies, the defined benefit plan comes with a guaranteed monthly payment (benefit). This is different than a defined contribution plan which does not have a specific payout but is instead based on the contributions that you (the employee) and/or your employer put into the account. In general, defined contribution plans are becoming more and more common, because they come with less locked-in obligations in the long-term and are cheaper for most involved.

Defined Benefit Plans
By far the most common defied benefit plan is the traditional pension. With a pension, in most cases, at retirement age a beneficiary receives a set monthly payout. These may prove complicated in the midst of divorce, because there is not necessarily a set value sitting in some account to split. Yet, in most cases a value of the pension will be ascertained and split to the best of the court's ability.

Defined Contribution Plans
A 401(k) plan is one of the more common defined contribution plans. Many local residents may have one of these. In most cases this plan is administered by an employer and involves agreement for a certain amount of contributions from both employer and employee each pay period. Federal rules limit contributions to $15,000 per year. In divorce the total amount in the 401(k) can be divided between spouses. However, it is critical to understand how early withdrawal, prior to retirement, results in a tax bill and potential penalties.

A 403(b) plan is like a 401(k) plan but its use is limited to certain entities. Only various governments, nonprofits, ministers, and others can take advantage of this option. Perhaps the most unique feature of these accounts is that there are limits on what investments can be made and even how many investment changes can be made. Rules allow one to contribute slightly more than in a 401(k) for these--up to $17,000 per year.

Finally, a defined contribution plan that most are probably familiar with is an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). IRAs are usually opened with a traditional financial institution, like a bank. Compared to 401(k)s and 403(b) plans there may be more flexibility in accessing these retirement accounts (with a penalty). Like the above plans, during divorce, an IRA account can be drained and split between spouses.

In many cases, retirement benefits are significant, and there is no other option but to take them out and split them. But, there are alternatives. For example, if one wanted to maintain an account intact, it might be possible by offering the other spouse alternative assets to offset the value of the retirement account. It it important to speak with an experienced divorce lawyer for help with these issues.

In California, Family Court judges can order a child custody evaluation, which may also be referred to as a "730 Evaluation," to look into the mental health and parenting practices of one or both parents. The evaluation usually takes place over a period set forth by the judge or the evaluator, from weeks to, sometimes, months. It will generally consist of psychological testing as well as interviews conducted with all adults involved with the child, including parents, step-parents and sometimes other adults who have significant roles in the child's life. While the judge orders the evaluation, either parent may also make a request for an evaluation.

Child custody evaluations have become quite commonplace in California family courts. Child custody evaluations are most often ordered when the judge has concerns about the best interests of the child. Judges will often base custody and visitation orders on the findings in these evaluations. Typically, an evaluation could be ordered for a number of reasons, including:

· Concerns about child abuse
· Substance abuse
· Mental health problems
· One parent wishes to move out of state and the other parent objects
· Questionable parenting practices
· Inability to agree on a custodial agreement
· Questions or concerns about the child's upbringing

Of course, there are other reasons you may wish to have an evaluation completed, and if that is the case, you can certainly request one.

In California, a custody evaluation must be conducted by a qualified mental health professional, like a psychiatrist, psychologist, qualified social worker, or marriage and family therapist. Even when a psychologist serves as the evaluator, they may choose to enlist another psychologist to complete the testing, with the evaluator then interpreting the test, since it is a highly-skilled area. The evaluator may either be chosen directly by the judge, or the judge may ask the parties to submit a list of evaluators, which the judge will then choose from.

After the evaluation, the evaluator will write up and submit a report to the judge and the parents' attorneys. The evaluator may be called into court to testify, either to defend or explain the recommendations, and in some cases, can be ordered to conduct further study into the matter. The parties will receive the evaluator's report in enough time to allow them to review it and make any objections.

If you disagree with the evaluator, you may challenge the evaluator's report or even file a motion to have the evaluator removed. In a recent case a father successfully moved to have the evaluator removed. In that case, the evaluator acted in ways to suggest that he was biased against the father. Furthermore, the court found that, through this bias, the evaluator may have negatively influenced the child's view of his father. Because the court then awarded sole legal custody to the mother based, at least in part, on the evaluator's report and on the child's possibly tainted statements, the court ordered the evaluator removed and the court's custody determination reversed.

When a married couple with children separates or divorces, or where only one of an unmarried couple has custody, the non-custodial parent may be responsible for paying child support.

Child support is typically based upon the non-custodial parent's income and the number of dependent children. California courts use child support guidelines - a matrix allowing the court to apply the parents' total income and match it with the number of children. The matrix then provides the amount of money the family should provide for their children. Then the court can determine what percentage each parent contributes to the monthly income. Under California law, in unique circumstances, the court may deviate from the guidelines. However, such deviations are rare, and the court must then state the reasons for doing so. It is the legislative intent in California that a parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children.

In the past, parents were left on their own to work through child support issues. However, state child support enforcement agencies are now taking a significant and aggressive position with regard to seeking payments from non-custodial parents. Even where the non-custodial parent has a reduced income, whether due to a job loss or salary reduction, they must still continue to pay child support. They may seek to have the child support obligation reduced, but they cannot decide on their own to simply reduce the amount they pay in child support.

Remedies that may be used to collect child support include:

Earnings Withholding Order for Support (Garnishment): An order issued on writ of execution, directing an obligor's employer to withhold and pay a percentage of obligor's earnings to the levying officer to satisfy a judgment for support.

Earnings Assignment Order: A court order directing an obligor's employer to withhold and pay a percentage of obligor's earnings to the obligee under a support order. Earnings assignment orders are automatic for support orders issued or modified on or after July 1, 1990, unless the assignment order is stayed or quashed.

Security Deposit Before Delinquency: A court order directing an obligor to establish a child support trust account in a state or federally chartered financial institution, into which obligor must deposit of up to one year's child support. Amounts may be deducted from the account and paid to the obligee if the obligor is 10 or more days late in making support payments.

Security Deposit After Delinquency: A court order directing an obligor to deposit cash or other assets with a court-designated deposit-holder to secure future child support payments. The assets may be used or sold to pay child support arrearages if payments continue in arrears.

Government Benefits Intercept: Permits a support obligee in cases in which the support obligation is not being enforced by a local child support agency to intercept certain payments by state agencies and other public agencies to the obligor to enforce a support obligation owing to the obligee, including tax returns.

Monetary Penalty on Delinquent Support Payments: Allows support obligee to file and serve a notice of delinquency on the obligor whenever payments under a support order are more than 30 days in arrears. Any payments that remain unpaid for more than 30 days after such a notice has been filed incur a penalty of 6 percent per month, up to a maximum of 72 percent of the unpaid balance.

Loss of Driver License: In cases where the local child support agency is enforcing the support obligation, your driver license can be suspended, revoked, not issued, or not renewed if you are delinquent in child support payments.

Division of debt in divorces is all part of a division of assets. Throughout a marriage, many couples acquire so many possessions, many of which have significant emotional value, and spouses wish to ensure that they retain the items dearest to them. Unfortunately, marital debt is also marital property and must be equitably divided during the divorce process. Particularly since the economic downturn in 2008, more and more divorcing spouses have to deal with extensive debt issues.

Divorcing spouses have two different options when dealing with debt during a divorce: pay off all of their debt prior to filing for divorce or dividing the debt. In most cases, divorcing spouses are not able to pay off all of their debt prior to divorcing, or they likely would have already paid it off. As a result, most divorcing spouses must determine the best and most appropriate way to divide the marital debt.

A divorce court will typically look at who incurred the debt and who benefited from the debt, to help determine who should be responsible for paying off the debt. For example, if one spouse purchases an expensive set of golf clubs with a credit card and uses those golf clubs every weekend to play golf, then it makes sense for that spouse to be responsible for paying that debt. As a general rule, only marital debt, acquired during the marriage rather than before the marriage began, will be divided by the court. Additionally, since California is a community property state, spouses are equally responsible for debt acquired during the marriage, no matter whose name the debt is in.

In almost every case, it is recommended that you request a credit report before you file for divorce or, at the very least, immediately after filing your divorce papers. The credit report can provide you with a great deal of information about your debts, including the status of your accounts, when they were opened, when they were closed (if applicable), and who is responsible for the debt. Your credit report could also remind you about old accounts that were never properly closed, which may be very important during the divorce proceedings if they are joint accounts.

Depending upon the circumstances, bankruptcy may need to be considered to deal with mounting debt issues. Depending upon the circumstances, one spouse may file on his or her own, or the couple may file jointly prior to finalizing the divorce. If most or all of the debt is in one spouse's name, then it may be best for that spouse to individually file for bankruptcy. A couple may only file jointly for bankruptcy if they are still married, so once the divorce becomes finalized, a joint filing is not permitted. However, even if a couple is still married, a joint bankruptcy may not be possible due to conflicts of interests if they have already filed for divorce. It is important to remember that a bankruptcy will not discharge child support or spousal support obligations. In addition, Chapter 7 bankruptcies do not discharge any court-ordered obligations, but a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing may still discharge such obligations.

A putative marriage is a marriage that appears to be valid and is entered into in good faith on the part of at least one of the partners, but is legally invalid due to a technical impediment. The most common impediment to a marriage is an earlier undissolved marriage. In other cases, a marriage may be putative if it is between close relatives, underage persons, or people who are incapable of entering into a marriage contract because of mental incompetence. In some cases, a putative marriage has been created if problems arise with the couple's marriage license, like forgetting to file it. If the putative spouse discovers the impediment and the couple undertakes steps to legalize their marriage within a reasonable period of time, then their marriage may be found valid. In some cases where the parties have a long union that both parties honestly believed was a valid marriage, a court may refuse to declare the marriage invalid and require a divorce to end the marriage. Although California law does not recognize a putative marriage as valid, it does have protections in place for the innocent spouse.

Good faith is an essential element of a putative marriage. Good faith means a bona fide belief that the parties can marry lawfully or were married lawfully. If the spouse becomes aware of the legal impediment to the marriage, then the question becomes how reasonable it is for the spouse to ignore the information and not investigate further.

A putative spouse is different than a statutory spouse, a common-law spouse, or a ceremonial marriage spouse, in that a putative spouse is not legally married. If the putative spouse can establish that they had a good faith believe that their marriage was valid, then they are entitled to certain protections under California law.

In 1994, the California legislature amended the putative marriage law to allow putative spouses to divide property acquired during the putative marriage. Under a traditional divorce, property acquired during the course of a marriage is considered community property. However, because a putative marriage is not considered valid under the California law, the property is considered "quasi-marital property." With quasi-marital property, one-half of the property belongs to the putative spouse, and one-half belongs to the legal community. The share that belongs to the legal community is distributed to the legal spouse and the common spouse like any other community property. In other words, the legal community property, which is half of the marital property, is again divided so that the putative spouse receives half and the other spouse receives half. As a result, the putative spouse will receive three-quarters of the property acquired during marriage.

In the event putative spouses have children together California family law applies. Child custody and support will be determined under California law, as they would in a valid marriage. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement amongst themselves, they can utilize the legal system, taking advantage of the traditional litigation path or using the alternative dispute resolution options offered.

In California, the property acquired or earned by either spouse during the marriage, is considered community property. California law mandates an equal split of community property (division of property). While many people are aware that items like houses, cars and other physical property must be divided during a divorce, they forget about life insurance. Life insurance can be a community asset, which is divided based upon the type of coverage.

Term Life Insurance
Term life insurance gives the policyholder coverage for a proscribed period of time, specified by the specific policy terms. Term life insurance tends to be the least expensive type of coverage available, since it will only cover the holder for a limited period. In addition, the premium only pays for the insurance policy. Once the term ends, the holder may renew the policy, but the premiums tend to increase with each renewal, as the policyholder ages.

Permanent Life Insurance
Permanent life insurance tends to be more expensive than term life insurance, because it covers the holder for their entire life, provided they continue to pay the premiums. Most permanent life insurance policies have a set premium that will not increase over the life of the policy. The premium paid is actually greater than the cost of the insurance policy, so the insurance company will often invest the extras. Permanent life insurance offers the possibility of dividends and interest earned from the extra money that is invested. The policy holder may elect to invest the extra income, borrow against case value of the policy, or terminate the policy to receive the cash surrender value.

A person seeking permanent life insurance has several options:

Whole Life Insurance
A whole life insurance policy allows the policyholder to receive coverage during their whole lifetime, provided they continue to pay the premiums. The excess payments from the premiums continue to build as the policy goes forward. A policyholder may then borrow from the cash reserve or later surrender the policy and receive its cash value.

Universal Life Insurance
Universal life insurance provides a more flexible approach than traditional permanent life insurance. Universal life insurance allows a policyholder to change the amount of their insurance, adjust their death benefit, and, accordingly, adjust their premium payments. Universal life insurance policies cost less than a typical whole life insurance policy. Policyholders still retain the ability to borrow or withdraw money from the cash reserve.

Variable Life Insurance
Variable life insurance policies involve the investment of a policyholder's cash reserve into stocks, bonds, and other securities. A variable life insurance policy's death benefit is based upon the performance of the policy holder's investments. Typically, the insurance company will guarantee a minimum return.

Variable Universal Life Insurance
Variable universal life insurance allows a policyholder to change the amount of their insurance coverage, thereby changing both the premium payments and death benefit. It also allows the policyholder to invest the excess money from their cash reserves.

Single Premium Life Insurance
Single premium life insurance policies require only one, up-front premium payment. Once the one-time premium is paid, the policy accumulates cash value and will distribute its proceeds to the policy's beneficiaries.

Survivorship Life Insurance
Survivorship life insurance policies are single policies that cover two people for one insurance benefit. The policy pays out onoly after both of the policyholders die.

Typically, a term life policy is not community property, since its duration is so short, and would not be divisible in a divorce proceeding. However, any whole life policy that accumulates cash value can be treated as community property. As a result, if the policy is considered community property it will be considered divisible during the divorce proceeding.

Business valuation in divorce cases and the distribution of marital property in many divorces can be complicated and the source of much frustration, anger, and contention for both parties. The process is even more complicated if the divorcing couple's community property includes interest in a business. The business interest will often be the most valuable part of the divorcing couple's community property. In addition, the business interest may generate profits and salaries for one or both of the divorcing spouses. The business interest is a part of the community property and, as such, must be divided as part of the divorce. In order to properly divide the community property, the business's value must be determined.

The valuation of a business is not a simple tax, and the use of a professional business appraiser is almost always required. There are several methods to determine business value, and the appraiser will typically select the most appropriate valuation method according to the type of business in question and the information available. Valuation methods fall into three categories: asset approach, income approach and market approach.

Asset Approach
The asset approach determines the business' value by using one or more methods based on the value of the assets minus any liabilities. The asset approach initially seems very simple, however, there are a number of complicating factors. For example, the value of property and equipment can, at times, be difficult to ascertain because their value is not always the equivalent of book value. In addition, assets like goodwill and intellectual property are notoriously difficult to value, because they are intangible. The asset approach is typically relied upon when the business is an investment or holding company, or with very small businesses or professional practices where there is little or no goodwill.

Income Approach
The income approach determines the value of the business using one or more methods that convert anticipated economic benefits into a present single amount. The income approach is the most widely used method for valuing small, privately held businesses. In reaching a business valuation, the expert will collect and review the business' historical financial data, in an attempt to estimate future business earnings. The valuation expert will attempt to determine the future income, along with the risk that the projected income will actually be received.

Market Approach
The market approach determines the value of the business by comparing the business to similar businesses that have been sold. The market approach is very similar to the method used by real estate agents when valuing homes. The difficulty with the market approach lies in finding data about other comparable business sales in the same geographic area. In fact, most businesses being valued are small, privately held businesses, while most transactional information available relates to large publicly held companies, with significant differences in size, sales, profits and geographic location.

Alimony, which may also be referred to as spousal support, is a monthly payment made by one spouse to the other following divorce. Alimony is used to prevent any unfair economic effects of a divorce on one spouse, such as a spouse's impaired earning potential.

There are no definite formulas for determining the amount of spousal support that a former spouse can receive. Every divorcing couple is different and the amount of support a spouse can expect to receive is based on each couple's individual circumstances. However, some common factors that are considered include:

· Income and property of each spouse
· Earning capacity of each spouse
· Impairments in earning capacity
· Whether there are any children and who will be raising the children
· Standard of living
· Duration of marriage
· Sacrifices or contributions one spouse made to the career or education of the other spouse

Spouses that have income and earning capacity that is comparable to the former spouse's, they will receive less in alimony. However, if the lower earning spouse has custody of the children, if the marriage was particularly long or they contributed to their former spouse's success, the amount of alimony may be adjusted accordingly.

Many people do not realize that there are different types of alimony. Rehabilitative alimony is made for a fixed period of time to allow the receiving spouse to get a job or finish their education. It acts as a transition for the receiving spouse. Many courts will periodically review rehabilitative alimony to determine if it should be continued, discontinued or adjusted.

Former spouses may also receive reimbursement alimony. Reimbursement alimony is awarded when one spouse reimburses the other spouse for expenses incurred during the marriage. For example, if a wife works to pay for her husband to attend college, the former husband may be ordered to pay his former wife reimbursement alimony for the costs of college. The reimbursement alimony payments will only continue until the amount is paid off.

Finally, where the marriage is long or one spouse is ill, the court may order one spouse to pay permanent alimony, which will continue until the death or remarriage of the receiving spouse.

While alimony is typically paid on a month by month basis, some courts have begun to allow the paying spouse to pay one lump-sum alimony payment. Lump-sum payments are really only appropriate where the amount of payment is fixed, like rehabilitative or reimbursement alimony. However, if the divorcing spouses wish, they can agree on a lump-sum alimony payment where permanent alimony is awarded. A lump-sum payment, where possible, can often be beneficial to both parties. The receiving spouse has the money immediately and does not have to deal with payment issues in the future. The paying spouse benefits by paying the amount outright, and not having to worry about making monthly alimony payments in the future. However, there are negatives with a lump-sum payment. Most lump-sum payments are less than what the receiving spouse would receive if they elected to receive monthly payments. In addition, with the receipt of such a large sum all at once, the receiving spouse may have negative tax consequences.