by Shawn Weber | Feb 24, 2011 | Uncategorized
Interesting article about non-custodial women. As a family law attorney, I am meeting more and more women who choose this arrangment for various reasons. It is still true that many women feel stigmatized. I find this phenominum similar to the visceral reaction that many women exhibit when they are asked to pay their husband alimony. After all, millions of years of evolution and biology have programed us to understand that the man is the provider. Society will look upon a male recipient of spousal support as a dead beat. Traditional societal values do have a strong impact about one’s feelings towards such basic institutions as the family and our roles within those institutions.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
by Shawn Weber | Feb 23, 2011 | Uncategorized
My friend and Certified Divorce Financial Analyst, Justin Reckers, recently did a great post on alimony and taxation. It’s worth a read. Pacific Divorce Management : Alimony Taxation – Part 7.
by Shawn Weber | Feb 22, 2011 | Uncategorized
Best Interest of the Child is the California Child Custody Standard
You hear it mentioned over and over again, “The Court makes a custody order in keeping with the child’s best interests.” However, seldom do you hear anyone define what “best interest of the child” really means. The factors that the court
Calfornia Family Code section 3041 defines “best interest of the child” for child custody
The factors that the court must consider in determining the best interests of the child are spelled out in California Family Code section 3011 as follows:
“In making a determination of the best interest of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider all of the following:
(a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.
(b) Any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any of the following:
(1) Any child to whom he or she is related by blood or affinity or with whom he or she has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.
(2) The other parent.
(3) A parent, current spouse, or cohabitant, of the parent or person seeking custody, or a person with whom the parent or person seeking custody has a dating or engagement relationship.
. . . .
(c) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046.
(d) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent. . . .”
Cal. Fam. § 3011 (West 2011).
Check out this further reading:
https://weberdisputeresolution.com/irreplaceable-dad/
https://weberdisputeresolution.com/in-california-what-is-the-difference-between-legal-custody-and-physical-custody/
https://weberdisputeresolution.com/holiday-visitation-bring-peace-on-earth-to-your-kids/
https://weberdisputeresolution.com/divorce-options-workshops/
by Shawn Weber | Feb 15, 2011 | Uncategorized
This article on Huffington Post has some excellent points about the modern prenup. I believe that the prenup conversation forces couples to discuss their money and expectations PRIOR to getting married. To me, that makes for a better marriage. If you can’t have the conversation, then perhaps you should think about whether you can have the marriage.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
by Shawn Weber | Jan 17, 2011 | Uncategorized
“Should” is simply the wrong question to ask when considering whether you have a community property business. The right question has more to do with what “is” under the law. California is a community property state. This means that anything that was acquired through labor or skill during the marriage is community property. If you built your business with the sweat of your brow, but that sweat came during the marriage, the fruits of such labor will be community property. So, yes, if you worked to grow your business during the marriage, chances are it is a community property business.
Even if your business was established prior to marriage, but it grew as a result of your labor during the marriage, there is a good chance the community has at least part ownership. Below are links to some cases and code sections relevant to the community property business:
Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1., 103 P. 488.
Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17, 199 P. 855.
Todd v. Commissioner (9 Cir 1945) 153 F.2d 553
CA. Family Code section 760.
CA Family Code section 770.
Community property business, FAQ, California divorce law
