Highlights

2001 will be a year to remember. We have been fortunate in many ways and unfortunate in others. As a result of our good fortune this year, we will once again be contributing to various causes including City of Hope, Habitat for Humanity, and Vista Del Mar. This past year will always be remembered and it wont be for the good reasons. As the year draws to a close we hope everyone takes stock of how fortunate we are to live in this country and how unfortunate it is that we have the enemies that we do. We cannot forget those whose lives were taken here and abroad by terrorists, nor can we forget the members of our armed forces both here and abroad that are serving our country during this holiday season. Best wishes for the coming year and hope that it will be peaceful and prosperous for all. Fred Silberberg

GROWTH IS A GOOD THING,

This location was selected, in large part, to help improve client service. In addition to more room for professional and support staff, our telephone system and service is improved. A live receptionist who will handle your call rather than simply forwarding you to voice mail answers all calls. In addition, our support staff is growing to also help in the area of client service.

For those of you visiting our office, visitor parking is also improved. No longer will you have to cruise the garage, and then spend 10 minutes making your way up to the suite. Century Park Plaza has valet parking. From there, youll be at our suite in a fraction of the time it used to take. All in all we think you will be as excited about this move as we are. Please do come and pay us a visit. Our new address is:

1801 Century Park East

Suite 1430

Los Angeles, California 90067

Tel: 310-556-1057

Fax: 310-556-0450

Our social fabric is changing dramatically and with it there are new legal issues arising all the time. The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision in Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.4^th 218, which has demonstrates just how complicated these situations can become, and the affect that they may have upon children. This particular decision has resulted in much outcry by civil rights organization and is a case of first impression in California that could have significant impact on children of same sex couples in the future.

Sharon and Annette were a lesbian couple that got together in 1989. They had a volatile relationship from the beginning and attended counseling during same. In 1996, Sharon was artificially inseminated by an anonymous donor and gave birth to Zachary. Annette petitioned to adopt Zachary, while Sharon retained parental rights to him. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Department recommended that the court not approve the adoption, but it did anyway. Three years later, Sharon gave birth to another boy, Joshua, also the result of an anonymous donor. As with the first child, Annette sought to adopt Joshua. Sharon consented to the adoption, agreeing that she could revoke said consent only if it were done within 90 days and that upon approval by the court of the adoption, she gave up all rights to Joshua. An addendum to the adoption agreement, created by the Department of Social Services stated that Sharon would retain all of her rights to Joshua and that the understanding was that the parties would co parent the child upon completion of the adoption. Apparently, the social services department had been modifying such agreements on its own for years, in order to accommodate same sex couples who did not come within any statutory scheme allowing them to adopt.

The hearing on the adoption in this case was not finalized, however, for over two years because Sharon kept requesting continuances. There were ongoing difficulties between the women and ultimately Sharon asked Annette to move out of their home, which she did. Annette then filed a motion seeking to establish a parental relationship with the child, and seeking sole custody of both boys. Annette also filed another motion to adopt Joshua, contending that the consent to the adoption by Annette was irrevocable. A family court services counselor recommended to the court that the women share joint legal custody, and that Annette have visitation. Visitation was ordered, after which Sharon sought a domestic violence restraining order, and moved to dismiss the adoption, claiming that there was no statutory authority for it. The trial court denied the motion, contending that the childs best interests should dictate whether the adoption proceeds or not.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. After reviewing the history of the adoption statutes, the court held that notwithstanding the procedures followed by Social Services, there was no legal basis for such an adoption and therefore Annette had no rights to the child. The court noted that if the legislature intended to allow for such adoptions, it would have authorized it. Interestingly enough, starting this January, registered domestic partners will have statutory authorization to adopt. However, the case has significant ramifications for thousands of children in that it potentially questions the stability of adoptions made under similar arrangements. Apparently, social service agencies and courts have been approving these adoptions for some time, without permission from the legislature. The Supreme Court is considering review. However, is it appropriate to disallow these adoptions when the stability of children who are already living in such familial arrangements is now at risk?

Child support is no laughing matter, but the decision in Marriage of Loh, 93 Cal.App.4^th 325 is rather amusing. The parties divorced in 1997 with three children. Wife was an insurance agent and Husband an investment advisor. In October of 1998, wife filed to obtain increased child support, she did not serve husband until June of 1999. Husband agreed to produce a number of documents, but never did. Wife did not do anything to enforce the agreement to obtain those records.

Husband had lost his job when the SEC shut down his firm. He was living with his girlfriend at the time of the hearing. Rather than compelling him to produce records before the hearing, Wife and her lawyer walked into court with five exhibits. They consisted of the following: 1) a packet of photographs showing husband with different cars (one of which husband testified belonged to his girlfriend), a packet of photos showing an $800,000 house in which husband resided (also owned by his girlfriend), 3) 1993 and 1994 tax returns and 5) a printout from the National Association of Securities Dealers listing husband working at another firm (husband testified that he had only applied for a job there when he lost his prior employment, and did not get hired at the new firm). Wifes lawyer argued that it was "inconceivable" that one could "duplicate" Husbands "lifestyle for less than $400,000 per year". The trial judge then decided he had monthly income of $9,000 tax free, based upon "the evidence". The trial judge upped the support amount considerably, only to be reversed by the Court of Appeal.

In reversing, the appellate court found no legal basis for the order, no actual evidence of income other than husbands current tax return, the income for which was undisputed. The court also mocked Wifes lawyer for failing to pursue records that could have been obtained prior to hearing. Apparently, living off the fat of the land, no matter how much fat there is, does not give rise to paying more child support. This opinion just may result in a renewed demand for "sugar mommies".