Source: http://masconcepts.com/category/famlawblog/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-12-14 06:27:21
Document Index: 519065589

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3022', '§ 3011', '§ 1218', '§ 10', '§ 2030', '§ 2550', '§ 273', '§ 6218', '§ 2100', '§ 2107', '§ 2107', '§ 1218', '§ 1211', '§ 1010', '§ 1016', '§ 215', '§ 1217', '§ 1209', '§ 1218', '§ 1200', '§ 1218', '§ 1218', '§ 1218', '§ 1218', 'art 5', '§ 3621', '§ 3622', '§ 3623', '§ 3624', '§ 3625', '§ 3626', '§ 3627', '§ 3628', '§ 3629', 'art 2', '§ 3630', '§ 3631', '§ 3632', '§ 3633']

Family Law/Divorce Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Masconcepts
The topic of this blog post is the filing of a response to a petition for dissolution of marriage (divorce) in California. The response must be on the Judicial Council Form FL-120 Response-Marriage (Response) which is a mandatory form. If there are minor children under the age of 18 years old of the marriage or relationship involved a Declaration under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Declaration) Judicial Council Form FL-105 must be used as this is also a mandatory form.
A Response should be filed in any case where the two parties have not already discussed an amicable divorce settlement. The filing of the Response will avoid any default being entered against the responding party and will ensure that they are on equal legal footing with the petitioner. The filing of a Response does not prevent the two parties from reaching an amicable settlement. It merely protects the interests of the responding party. The Court will charge a filing fee when the Response is filed, in most counties the filing fee is currently $395.00 unless the responding party can qualify for a fee waiver. The responding party should call their local Court to verify the correct filing fee for their particular county.
Form Interrogatories for divorce and other family law cases are available using Judicial Council Form FL-145. This form is extremely useful as the questions are specifically tailored to the issues involved in a typical case. For instance a party may ask the other party to provide the last three (3) years tax returns, and also to complete a Schedule of Assets and Debts, Judicial Council Form FL-142, if that form is attached to the Form Interrogatories and the appropriate box is checked. The other party has thirty five (35) calendar days to respond if the Form Interrogatories are served by first class mail.
In the opinion of the author, the Form Interrogatories should be utilized and served concurrently with the Response even in a simple case as they are relatively easy and can be completed fairly quickly. Proper use of the Form Interrogatories is an easy and quick way to obtain the most information with a minimum of effort.
Special Interrogatories are also extremely useful as a party can request the other party to state all facts, identify all persons having personal knowledge of the facts, and all documents in support of the facts, which support the other party’s request for attorney’s fees, sole custody, spousal support and other requests or contentions made in that party’s Petition or Response.
The author of this article, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California litigation since 1995.
Bifurcation procedures for California dissolution of marriage (divorce)
This blog post gives an overview of the Bifurcation process as it applies to California dissolution (“Divorce”) proceedings. It can take many months, even several years, for a contested divorce to wind its way through the courts. Faced with this fact, many spouses want to terminate the marriage quickly, even if the other issues in the case have not been settled. There might also be situations in which it makes sense to have a separate trial of a particular issue.
Bifurcations are generally requested because one or both of the spouses want to remarry. They are also sought because one or both of them want to file their tax returns for the current year as a “single” taxpayer.
The tax laws state that a person can file as a “single” person as long as his or her marital status was terminated before the end of the year. Thus, even if the marital status is ended on December 31st, the taxpayer can file as a “single” person for the entire year. This can be significant, particularly for the person who is paying spousal or “family” support.
Payments of spousal and family support are 100% deductible for the person who is ordered to make those payments. Conversely, spousal and family support payments must be reported as income by the person receiving them. Income tax laws provide that these support payments are not deductible if the spouses file a joint tax return.
The law provides that the marital status can be terminated not less than six months from when the Respondent was served with the Petition for Divorce. So, only cases in which the Respondent was served before July 1st can be bifurcated during that year.
Most courts require the filing of a motion for bifurcation, although some courts allow it to be done simply by filing a written stipulation. If a motion is required, the appropriate court papers must be prepared, which must then be filed with copies mailed to the spouse or his/her attorney. Approximately 4-8 weeks after the motion is filed, the requesting spouse and his/her attorney if they have one have to appear before the judge, who will almost always grant the request.
California law favors bifurcation in the absence of particularized, compelling reasons to the contrary. Under this approach, bifurcation will be granted for almost any reason, such as possible tax advantages, fewer constraints in social and financial matters, or the fact that the property issues will require more discovery and a more lengthy trial.
For example, in Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 786, 788-790, the California Court of Appeal held that a request for bifurcation does not have to be justified by a compelling showing of need, and that on the contrary a spouse opposing bifurcation must present compelling reasons for denial. Reviewing California case law, the court found that bifurcation was a favored procedure because it implemented the policy underlying no-fault divorce. The court noted that the state’s high court had endorsed the concept of bifurcation in these terms:
“Severance of a personal relationship which the law has found to be unworkable and, as a result, injurious to the public welfare is not dependent upon final settlement of property disputes. Society will be little concerned if the parties engage in property litigation of however long duration; it will be much concerned if two people are forced to remain legally bound to one another when this status can do nothing but engender additional bitterness and unhappiness.” Hull v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 139, 147.
While the granting of a request for bifurcation of the marital status is virtually automatic, there are some prerequisites and conditions that must be followed by the requesting party. Initially, the party requesting bifurcation must serve his or her preliminary declaration of disclosure on the other spouse before the request for bifurcation is filed. The judge will usually impose certain “conditions” on the granting of a bifurcation. These include: (1) The obligation to reimburse opposing party for any tax consequences or loss of right to claim probate homestead or family allowance; (2) The employee-spouse must maintain existing medical insurance for the other spouse; (3) The employee-spouse must indemnify the other spouse for loss of pension death benefits. In addition, the law requires that, before a bifurcation is granted, the pension plans of the spouses must be joined in the divorce case.
As discussed above, a person can file as a “single” taxpayer for the entire year, as long as the marital status was terminated sometime in that year, even as late as December 31st. This is why there is usually a flood of bifurcation motions filed at the end of the year. To be assured that the clerk places a bifurcation motion on the court’s calendar before the end of the year, the motion should be filed not later than November 15th.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California litigation since 1995.
Requesting a modification of child custody and/or visitation orders in California
The topic of this blog post is the issues involved in requesting the Court to modify the child custody and/or visitation orders in California. Several statutes and cases outline the standards used and the burden of proof on the moving party.
California law states that child custody and visitation orders generally are modifiable throughout the child’s minority whenever the court finds a modification is “necessary or proper” in the child’s best interests. See Family Code § 3022.
To put it another way, in child custody/visitation matters (just as with child support,) the family law court has continuing jurisdiction and the matter thus remains pending even after entry of the underlying dissolution (or legal separation or nullity) judgment. Marriage of Kreiss (2004) 122 Cal.App. 4th 1082, 1085.
Although the statutes governing custody adjudications only requires courts to ascertain the child’s best interest, the best interest standard has an added twist once a “final” judicial custody determination is in place: A party seeking to modify a “permanent” custody order can do so only upon a showing of a significant change of circumstances so affecting the child that modification is essential to the child’s welfare. Absent such a showing, any modification would be an abuse of discretion as denying the child the benefits of a stable home environment and thus would not be in his or her best interest. Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 249, 256, Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 1072, 1088.
Indeed, the trial court’s exercise of discretion is far more limited when it effects a change in existing custody orders than when it makes an initial custody decision. Appellate courts are “less reluctant to find an abuse of discretion when custody is changed than when it is originally awarded, and reversals of such orders have not been uncommon.” Marriage of McLoren (1988) 202 Cal.App. 3d 108, 113, modification giving W joint legal custody (where original order gave H sole legal and physical custody) reversed because W failed to present proof of change of circumstances affecting children’s welfare]
The “changed circumstances” rule is an adjunct of the statutory “best interests” test for determining child custody. See Family Code §§ 3011, 3040(b). It furthers the paramount goal of preserving the need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements, unless some significant change in circumstances indicates a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest. Montenegro v. Diaz, supra, 26 Cal. 4th at 256, Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 531, 535, see Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 947, 956.
While the party seeking a modification of child custody must make a showing of changed circumstances in many cases, there are exceptions to this rule that should be carefully considered and reviewed by any party contemplating requesting that the Court modify a child custody and/or visitation orders in California.
The changed circumstances rule is triggered only after a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication. The ordinary best interest standard, without the additional changed circumstances burden of proof, applies when the court makes an initial custody adjudication and when it adjudicates custody following any temporary or interim custody order. Montenegro v. Diaz, supra 26 Cal. 4th at 256, 257; Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25, 29, 37.
So as not to discourage parties from entering into custody stipulations, any doubts about whether the parties intended a stipulated custody order to be a “final” or “permanent” custody adjudication will be resolved against finality and thus against application of the changed circumstances rule in subsequent proceedings to modify the stipulated order.
All indication is that, where the issue is disputed, a stipulated order will be deemed to be temporary or interim in nature unless it clearly states it is a final judgment as to custody or words to that effect. See Montenegro v. Diaz, supra, 26 Cal. 4th at 259, neither underlying stipulations nor court’s minute order contained “clear, affirmative indication” that parties intended stipulated orders to be final judicial custody determinations; Marriage of Rose & Richardson (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 941, 952, (citing text).
A stipulated dissolution judgment awarded the parties’ joint legal custody, mother “primary physical custody” and father “reasonable visitation.” The judgment also recited, however, that “in the event the parties are unable to resolve their custody and visitation issues, they shall agree upon a therapist or counselor to assist them. If after meeting with a therapist or counselor, the parties remain unable to resolve their differences, they shall make an appointment with the
Conciliation Court prior to either party filing a request with the Court for a hearing on the issue.” Despite other boilerplate language in the judgment stating it was intended to be a final settlement of the parties’ rights and obligations, there was no “clear, affirmative indication” that they intended the stipulated custody provision to be a final judicial custody determination. Quite the contrary, the stipulated language warranted “the opposite conclusion the parents disagreed and were attempting to resolve the custody and visitation issues.” Marriage of Rose & Richardson, supra, 102 Cal. App 4th at 951, 952.
As to physical custody, the changed circumstances rule applies when the modification request seeks to remove custody from one parent and give it to the other. By contrast, no change of circumstances need be shown as a prerequisite to altering only the co-parenting schedule (the amount of time the child spends in each parent’s household) under a joint custody order. Proposed changes in parenting time are “not on a par with a request to change physical custody from sole to joint custody, or vice versa”; the only standard the moving parent must meet in such cases is the child’s best interest. Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 1371, 1379, 1380; Marriage of Birnbaum (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1508, 1513.
So long as the joint custody award itself is not being changed, the court has very broad discretion to revise the “coparenting residential arrangement” where the parents are unable to agree and call upon the court to intervene. Marriage of Birnbaum, supra, 211 Cal. App. 3d at 1518.
And the changed circumstances rule does not apply when a parent requests only a modification of the visitation arrangement (whether in a joint custody or sole custody situation). Because such a modification does not change “custody,” the trial court considers a visitation modification solely under the child’s best interests standard. Marriage of Lucio (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1077 1080, (citing text) (collecting cases) noncustodial parent who had supervised visitation not required to show changed circumstances in support of request for unmonitored visits and additional visitation time not amounting to “de facto joint custody”.
Order to Show Cause for Contempt in California Family Law proceedings, part one
The topic of this blog post is the filing of an order to show cause for contempt in a California family law proceeding. This is part one of the blog post series on contempt in California family law proceedings.
Under California law a party subject to a valid court order who, with knowledge of the order and the ability to comply, fails to comply with the terms of the order is subject to a contempt adjudication and statutory contempt penalties. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1218 & 1219. As an enforcement remedy, exercise of the contempt power enables the court to compel compliance with its valid orders.
In California a contempt proceeding in a family law case is initiated by the filing of an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt with the Court to obtain a hearing date. The person who is alleged to be in contempt must be personally served with the Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt at least 16 Court days before the hearing.
Family law orders and judgments are enforceable by contempt unless punishment by contempt would violate the constitutional guaranty against imprisonment for nonpayment of “debt” U.S. Const., Amend. XIII; Ca Const. Art. I, § 10. However, an order or judgment is not a “debt” within the meaning of the constitutional guaranty against imprisonment for “debt” simply because it requires the payment of money. As discussed below, most (but not all) family law orders and judgments are deemed based on a law-imposed obligation (not “money judgments in civil actions for debts”) and thus are enforceable by the court’s contempt power.
Child, spousal and family support orders are based on an obligation arising out of marriage and parentage and are imposed by law. They are not money judgments in civil actions for the payment of a “debt” within the meaning of the constitutional guaranty against imprisonment for debt and thus clearly are enforceable by contempt.
Child custody and visitation orders do not impose a “debt” obligation. Thus, e.g., the court may invoke its contempt power against a parent who unjustifiably interferes with the other parent’s court-ordered visitation rights or violates an injunction restraining relocation with the children.
Need-based attorney fees and costs are awardable by statute in marital proceedings. Family Code §§ 2030/2032. The award is based on a law-imposed obligation (not arising out of a money judgment for a “debt”) and thus is enforceable by contempt.
A spouse who refuses to relinquish a specific item of property or to pay over a portion of a specific fund of money pursuant to a community property division order is subject to enforcement by contempt. The obligation is “law-imposed” (not a “debt”) because based on the parties’ statutory right to an equal division of community property upon termination of marital status. See Family Code § 2550 et seq.
The court may properly invoke its contempt power to compel compliance with valid protective orders and restraining orders issued in a domestic relations proceeding. Penal Code § 273.6 misdemeanor penalty for intentional and knowing violation of Family Code § 6218 protective orders.A spouse who has complied with the statutory “declaration of disclosure” requirements in marriage dissolution proceedings Family Code § 2100 et seq. has various statutory remedies against the other spouse who has failed to comply. One such remedy is a motion to compel a further response Family Code § 2107(b)(1)). If the noncomplying spouse fails to file a sufficient response, the complying spouse may seek monetary sanctions “in addition to any other remedy provided by law”. Family Code § 2107(c).
The contempt remedy for noncompliance with a court order made under the Family Code is subject to a statute of limitations. Code of Civil Procedure § 1218.5.
For an alleged failure to pay child, family or spousal support, the contempt action must be commenced no later than three years from the date the payment was due.
A contempt cause of action for nonpayment of support may be broken down into separate “counts” for each month payment was not made in full. Thus, the fact the obligor stopped (or fell short in) payments over three years ago is not fatal to a contempt remedy: Each month within the three-year period for which payments were in default is separately punishable as separate counts of contempt.
A contempt action to enforce any other order made under the Family Code must be brought within two years “from the time that the alleged contempt occurred.”
In California a contempt proceeding in a family law case is initiated by the filing of an Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt with the Court. The person alleged to be in contempt (“citee”) is then served with a copy of the Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt.
The facts constituting the contempt must be alleged by an “affidavit of facts,” setting forth the type of order violated, the date the order was issued, how the order was violated, and when the violation occurred. Jurisdiction to adjudicate a contempt ordinarily exists only if the charging affidavit alleges evidentiary facts showing a prima facie case of contempt as discussed below. Code of Civil Procedure § 1211(a).
However, a deficient charging affidavit may be amended at any stage of the proceeding. And, if there is no objection to the sufficiency of the charging affidavit, jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt may be established by facts proved at the contempt hearing (in which case, the court “shall cause the affidavit or statement to be amended to conform to proof”).
The citee must be formally notified of the charge and of the time and place for the court hearing on the charge. Service of the notice must be effected in a manner authorized for service of summons; an OSC re Contempt is not properly served by the more liberal Code of Civil Procedure § 1010 et seq. methods for service of motions or OSCs generally. Code of Civil Procedure § 1016; Family Code § 215.
Unlike ordinary motion and OSC proceedings, contempt cannot be decided on the moving and responding papers alone. The citee is entitled to a formal hearing as a matter of right and must be allowed to testify, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence in defense of the charge. Code of Civil Procedure § 1217.
Contempt citees clearly have a due process right to be represented by an attorney they have retained for that purpose. Additionally, where the potential penalty includes a jail sentence, an indigent citee has the due process right to court-appointed counsel at county expense.
The citee must be afforded the testimonial privileges of a criminally accused: He or she is entitled to exercise the privilege not to be called as a witness, and can decline to answer specific questions, claiming the privilege against self-incrimination. These privileges are not waived by filing an answer to the charging declaration.
As a general rule, the citee also has the same rights as a criminally accused to proof of a prima facie contempt case by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The contempt must be discharged if the charging party fails to carry this burden on each element of the prima facie case.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for all “serious” criminal contempts such as when the contempt is punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment.
The right to a jury trial under the California constitution is broader: It extends to all criminal prosecutions above an “infraction.” Thus, there is a right to jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings that carry a maximum penalty comparable to a felony or misdemeanor (six months’ imprisonment plus $1,000 fine) regardless of what the Legislature has labeled the offense.
However, there is no right to jury trial where the court invokes its general summary contempt power under Code of Civil Procedure § 1209 and imposes only a maximum five-day sentence and/or $1,000 fine. Code of Civil Procedure § 1218(a). That punishment is not akin to a misdemeanor penalty and thus does not trigger the state constitutional jury trial provision.
The elements or facts generally necessary to establish a prima facie contempt of a family law order are: (1) rendition of a valid order; (2) the citee’s knowledge of the order; and (3) the citee’s willful disobedience of the order.
A contempt adjudication cannot stand if the underlying order is invalid. The charging affidavit must identify the underlying order by date of entry and type. For purposes of sustaining a prima facie case, the court can presume validity unless the order is void on its face; the citee thus normally bears the burden of showing invalidity, either as an affirmative defense in the answer or by motion to discharge the contempt citation.
Part two of this blog post will discuss the remaining issues that will be decided at any contempt hearing.
Order to Show Cause for Contempt in California Family Law proceedings, part two
This blog post is part two of the series which discusses the filing of an order to show cause for contempt in a California family law proceeding, including the remaining issues that will be decided at any contempt hearing.
The charging affidavit in support of the order to show cause for contempt must set forth facts showing the citee’s notice or knowledge of the underlying order as this is a a jurisdictional prerequisite to a valid contempt adjudication.
Knowledge can be shown by personal service of a copy of the order, the citee’s presence in court when the order was made, the citee’s signature on a stipulation upon which the order was based, or proof that the citee previously sought relief related to the order such as a modification.
To complete a prima facie case of contempt, the charging party must allege facts showing the citee’s willful disobedience of the underlying order.
In making a family law support or attorney fees/costs order, the family court necessarily must determine the obligor’s ability to pay. Since the court has already determined the obligor’s ability to pay the underlying order, present ability to pay is not an element of a prima facie contempt case predicated on nonpayment. Rather, inability to pay is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the citee.
A custodial parent can be held in contempt of a visitation order only when he or she has sufficient control over the child so as to have the ability to make the child available for visitation. This is a fact question in each case. A parent probably has sufficient control over minor children of “tender years” to compel them to visit with the other parent; failure to make such children available for visitation probably would be punishable as contempt. But the result may be otherwise when the children get older and it becomes more difficult to exert parental “control.” If a teenage child refuses to visit with the noncustodial parent, through no fault of the custodial parent, the custodial parent lacks the ability to comply with the order and cannot be held in contempt; in these cases, the noncustodial parent is probably left without a remedy.
The citee may answer the charge, admitting or denying it, or may move for a discharge without answering. In response to the contempt charge, and before the hearing, the citee can file an opposing affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, questioning the adequacy of the moving party’s charging affidavit or raising a sufficient “excuse or justification” in defense. The opposing affidavit together with the charging affidavit frame the issues to be tried in the proceeding.
Contempt charges are commonly defended on the ground that any failure to comply with the underlying order was not “wilful” because the citee lacked the ability to comply. The citee does not meet this burden, however, with conclusory declarations. He or she must set forth evidentiary facts showing why complete performance was impossible. Moreover, default under the order will not be excused if the responding allegations disclose that the inability to comply was self-imposed for the purpose of avoiding compliance.
In lieu of an answer, the citee can move for a discharge of the contempt citation on the following grounds:
The order expired before the alleged violation. But if the order was in effect at the time of the violation, discharge will not be granted simply because it has expired or been superseded at the time of the contempt proceedings.
Normally, either the citee or his or her attorney must appear at the hearing; and, if neither appears, a bench warrant can issue to secure their presence. But it is error for the court to proceed in the absence of the alleged contemnor or his or her attorney, unless it finds the OSC and Affidavit for Contempt forms were validly served and the failure to appear was voluntary.
The charging and opposing affidavits are hearsay and thus inadmissible over objection. Evidence Code §§ 1200(a),(b).
The penalties upon a contempt adjudication are prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1218 and 1219.
Upon a contempt adjudication for failure to comply with a court order made under the Family Code, the court “shall order” community service and/or imprisonment as prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure § 1218(c).
Upon a first finding of contempt, the party found in contempt (“contemnor”) must be ordered to perform community service of up to 120 hours, or to be imprisoned up to 120 hours (five days), for each count of contempt.
Upon a second finding of contempt, the contemnor must be ordered to perform up to 120 hours of community service, in addition to imprisonment of up to 120 hours (five days), for each count of contempt.
Upon the third or any subsequent finding of contempt, the contemnor must be imprisoned for up to 240 hours (10 days) and be ordered to perform up to 240 hours of community service, for each count of contempt.
The contemnor must also be ordered to pay an “administrative fee,” not exceeding the “actual cost” of the contemnor’s administration and supervision, while assigned to a community service program.
With regard to child, family or spousal support contempts, each month in which there was a default may be alleged as a separate count of contempt and punishment imposed for each count proved. This provision means that each count alleged in one charging affidavit may result in one “finding of contempt”; but that the specified community service and imprisonment penalties may be aggregated for each of the counts proved.
As an example: One charging affidavit alleges five months’ default in support payments, each as a separate count. If the citee has not yet been adjudicated in contempt of a Family Code order, proof of each count in a single proceeding will amount to a “first finding of contempt” under Code of Civil Procedure § 1218(c)(1); but the citee may be ordered to perform up to 600 hours of community service or be imprisoned for up to 600 hours (25 days).
In addition to the fine, community service and imprisonment penalties discussed above, a party (or party’s agent) found in contempt for violating a court order “may” be ordered to pay the charging party’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding. Code of Civil Procedure § 1218(a).
Family Code Section 3665 states that, “
The topic of this blog post is obtaining a 6 percent a month penalty in certain cases on delinquent child support in the State of California. This is done by utilizing the Civil Penalty for Child Support Delinquency contained in Part 5, Chapter 5 of the California Family Code, specifically sections 4720 through 4733. The California Family Code provides many different methods by which to enforce a child support order. Many family law attorneys and other professionals are either not aware of this method, or do not utilize it because they assume it must be complicated. This is not true. It is a vital tool for use in child support enforcement in California.
Obtaining an expedited child support order in California
The topic of this blog post is obtaining an expedited child support order in California. The California Family Code provides a very useful method to obtain an expedited child support order, in some cases without a hearing. This means that a child support order may be obtained faster than the traditional method of filing an order to show cause. The relevant statutes are contained in Chapter 5 of the California Family Code, sections 3620 through 3634.
The forms used are official Judicial Council forms FL-380 through FL-382. Click below to view the official forms. http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=MO
These statutes allow a party to file and then serve a request for an expedited child support order. The procedure and relevant rules for using this method to obtain an expedited order for child support are as follows: In an action for expedited child support that has been filed and served, the Court may, without a hearing, make an order requiring a parent or parents to pay for the support of their minor child or children during the pendency of that action, pursuant to this chapter, the amount required by Section 4055 or, if the income of the obligated parent or parents is unknown to the applicant, then the minimum amount of support as provided in Section 11452 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. See Family Code § 3621.
The court shall make an expedited support order upon the filing of all of the following: (a) An application for an expedited child support order, setting forth the minimum amount the obligated parent or parents are required to pay pursuant to Section 4055 of this code or the minimum basic standards of adequate care for Region 1 as specified in Sections 11452 and 11452.018 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (b) An income and expense declaration for both parents, completed by the applicant. (c) A worksheet setting forth the basis of the amount of support requested. (d) A proposed expedited child support order. See Family Code § 3622.
(a) An application for the expedited support order confers jurisdiction on the court to hear only the issue of support of the child or children for whom support may be ordered. (b) Nothing in this chapter prevents either party from bringing before the court at the hearing other separately noticed issues otherwise relevant and proper to the action in which the application for the expedited support order has been filed. See Family Code § 3623.
(a) Subject to Section 3625, an expedited support order becomes effective 30 days after service on the obligated parent of all of the following: (1) The application for an expedited child support order. (2) The proposed expedited child support order, which shall include a notice of consequences of failure to file a response. (3) The completed income and expense declaration for both parents. (4) A worksheet setting forth the basis of the amount of support requested. (5) Three blank copies of the income and expense declaration form. (6) Three blank copies of the response to an application for expedited child support order and notice of hearing form. (b) Service on the obligated parent of the application and other required documents as set forth in subdivision (a) shall be by personal service or by any method available under Sections 415.10 to 415.40, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) Unless there is a response to the application for an expedited support order as provided in Section 3625, the expedited support order shall be effective on the obligated parent without further action by the court. See Family Code § 3624.
(a) A response to the application for the proposed expedited support order and the obligated parent’s income and expense declaration may be filed with the court at any time before the effective date of the expedited support order and, on filing, shall be served upon the applicant by any method by which a response to a notice of motion may be served. (b) The response to the application for an expedited support order shall state the objections of the obligated parent to the proposed expedited support order. (c) The simultaneous filing of the response to the application for an expedited support order and the obligated parent’s income and expense declaration shall stay the effective date of the expedited support order. (d) No fee shall be charged for, or in connection with, the filing of the response. See Family Code § 3625.
The obligated parent shall cause the court clerk to, and the court clerk shall, set a hearing on the application for the expedited support order not less than 20 nor more than 30 days after the filing of the response to the application for the expedited support order and income and expense declaration. See Family Code § 3626.
The obligated parent shall give notice of the hearing to the other parties or their counsel by first-class mail not less than 15 days before the hearing. See Family Code § 3627.
If notice of the hearing is not given as provided in Section 3627, the expedited support order becomes effective as provided in Section 3624, subject to the relief available to the responding party as provided by Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other available relief whether in law or in equity. See Family Code § 3628.
(a) At the hearing on the application for the expedited support order, all parties who are parents of the child or children who are the subject of the action shall produce copies of their most recently filed federal and state income tax returns. (b) A tax return so submitted may be reviewed by the other parties, and a party also may be examined by the other parties as to the contents of the return. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a party who fails to submit documents to the court as required by this chapter shall not be granted the relief that the party has requested. (d) The court may grant the requested relief if the party submits a declaration under penalty of perjury that (1) no such document exists, or (2) in the case of a tax return, it cannot be produced, but a copy has been requested from the Internal Revenue Service or Franchise Tax Board. See Family Code § 3629.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the amount of the expedited support order shall be the minimum amount the obligated parent is required to pay as set forth in the application. (b) If a hearing is held on the application, the court shall order an amount of support in accordance with Article 2 (commencing with Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2. See Family Code § 3630. When there is a hearing, the resulting order shall be called an order after hearing. See Family Code § 3631.
An order after hearing shall become effective not more than 30 days after the filing of the response to the application for the expedited support order and may be given retroactive effect to the date of the filing of the application. See Family Code § 3632. An order entered under this chapter may be modified or terminated at any time on the same basis as any other order for child support. See Family Code § 3633.
As stated in this blog post the method described above is an extremely useful tool to obtain an expedited child support order, in some cases without a hearing, provided that the other party does not oppose it. And even if there is a hearing it must be held not more than 30 days from the filing of any response. This is significantly faster in most cases than the traditional methods of obtaining a child support order.