Highlights

We are pleased to announced that Adrienne Liebman has joined our firm as an associate attorney as of April 1^st. Adrienne brings five years of family law experience to our office and will be a valuable asset to our legal staff. Adrienne has significant litigation experience, having handled family law litigation through her own office prior to joining us. Please introduce yourself to Adrienne the next time you are in the office. Adrienne expands our legal staff to three attorneys, which will assist us in providing more effective client service.

Fred continues to publish his monthly op-ed piece on family law topics in the Daily Journal, the statewide legal newspaper. The column has sparked some interesting discussions amongst the bench and bar over the past few years and has also prompted some changes in policy in the family law area. In order to give those that have not seen the column the opportunity to view it, in the next few weeks the articles will appear on our website,

The Daily Journal is not the only publication interested in Freds commentary. Within the past month Fred has been interviewed by The Los Angeles Business Journal as well as People magazine. The Business Journal ran a story extensively quoting Fred on the new law relating to prenuptial agreements, in its June 17 issue. In addition, in early June Fred was asked to appear on a live broadcast on the British Broadcasting Company to comment on family law mediation, something that is apparently not available in the United Kingdom. Fred was connected to the BBC Studios in London by satellite hookup.

In 1996 the California Supreme Court decided In Re Marriage of Burgess, which set forth the presumption that a custodial parent could move away with a child absent a showing of prejudice to a childs rights. In a case where the parties had joint physical custody pursuant to a court order, the court was required to conduct a new review of the situation and make a determination of what was in the childs best interests. Since that decision, lawyers representing parents who have agreed to arrangements of less than equal time sharing have done what they can to try and draft custody agreements in a manner to try and prevent the parent with the larger block of time from being able to move away. However, the June 24^th decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in In Re Marriage of Lasich, makes it clear that a move-away case turns on the actual timesharing percentage and that only those parents who are close to an equal timesharing arrangement will be successful in blocking a move-away.

In Lasich, the parents agreed to what was formerly considered a traditional time-sharing arrangement. The children lived primarily with their mother and spent alternating weekends and two evenings per week with their father. This agreement was reached in April of 1999, embodied in a stipulated court order entered in April of 2000. In December of 2000, Mother petitioned the court to allow her to move to Barcelona, Spain to which father objected. The court granted her request

In permitting mother to move, the court looked to the underlying custody arrangement. The fact that father had what amounted to 20 percent of the available time was significant in the opinion of the court. Father offered to have the children live with him in Sacramento, but the court found that not to be in the childrens best interests. Mother contended that she had family in Barcelona and the ability to live in an inherited apartment. Mother also offered, and was then ordered, to set up internet communications, including webcam conferencing for the children and their father. Mother offered to pay the cost of having the father come to Barcelona to visit with the children, and agreed to have them educated in American schools there.

Father testified that he was very involved with his children notwithstanding the timesharing arrangement, that he had helped toilet-train his daughter and did homework with both children. He contended that he would have sought more time at the outset of the custodial agreement, but that mother would not voluntarily agree to it and he did not have the financial resources to fight her. The court appointed custody mediator testified that he saw no reason for a change and that the most preferential arrangement would be to deny mothers request to move.

During the course of the trial, the judge determined that mothers motives in moving were not spiteful, but were genuinely geared toward providing for the family.

The children in this case were ages 5 and 7. Fathers expert (who had not evaluated the entire family) testified that at their ages an interruption in the frequency of contact with father would be detrimental to the children, that they would have guilt feelings over it, and that it may result in a lifelong impact upon their relationship with their father. Nonetheless, the trial judge remained convinced that it was best to permit mother to raise the children in Spain. The move was permitted granted upon certain conditions, which included establishing communication between father and the children, providing for transportation for father at mothers expense, and requiring mother to register the court order in Spain and agree that California would continue to have jurisdiction over custody of the children notwithstanding their residing in Spain.

In sustaining the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court was proper in not conducting a review of the custody arrangement as though it were one of first impression, because father did not have anywhere near equal timesharing. The court discussed a line of cases demonstrating that unless there is nearly equal timesharing, one parent truly is the primary custodial parent and the other enjoys what the court determined to be "liberal visitation rights". Having concluded that father did not have true joint custody, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding that mother, as the primary custodial parent, had the right to change the childrens residence, even if it meant going to a foreign country.

This case emphasizes the impact of timesharing on future developments in a divorcing family. It is problematic in that while it may not be most suitable for children to be in an equal timesharing arrangement, it may also not be suitable to have children moved far away from one parent. With these types of decisions, the court almost encourages parents to insist on an equal timesharing arrangement to insure that contact with children is not minimized or lost. The term "best interests of the child" is supposed to be the key in considering all custody arrangements but in practice it may not come into play at all, as this case demonstrates.