Family Law Notes

Advertisers in this issue:
Effres & Efrres
Fox Law Corporation
Krycler Ervin Taubman & Kaminsky
Law Offices of Lawrence C. Noble
Lawyers' Mutual
Lewitt Hackman
One Legal
Scheideman Design
Valley Community Legal Foundation

Download this issue of Valley Lawyer.

By Suzy Marjanian

Note No. 1

Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders – Don’t Touch a Thing!

Due Process requires that when sued, defendant must receive notice of the action and an opportunity to be heard.  In a standard civil case, the Summons, which accompanies the Complaint, states, “you have been sued” (notice) and have “30 days to respond” (opportunity to be heard).  In family law, the Summons contains additional language called ATROs – Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders that go into effect upon commencement of a Dissolution.  Although the respondent is served with the Summons and ATRO, the ATRO is applicable to both parties. The ATRO restrains both parties from:

~Removing any minor child from California

~Cashing, borrowing against…. or changing the beneficiaries of insurance

~Transferring, encumbering…. the beneficiaries of any property

~Creating or modifying a non-probate transfer

In Family Law, both parties must understand what acts are covered by the ATROs.  Some actions may be permissible such as paying bills “in the usual course of business” or for the “necessities of life,” while other acts such as sale of stock or taking a child outside California, may be a violation.  In short, filing a Petition or responding to a Petition, counsel needs to educate their client regarding ATROs so as to prevent negative ramifications to a party’s case.

Note No. 2

Deviating from Guideline Child Support

Marriage of Laudeman, (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4^th 1009.

What is the correct amount of child support to be paid by a parent who will be ordered to pay child support based upon the income of the parties and the custodial timeshare with the child?

California Rules of Court 5.260(b) outlines the deviations from guideline child support in orders and judgments. There is a rebuttable presumption that the guideline figures are correct. However, there can be certain situations in which there can be specific findings to deviate from the guideline child support. One very common practice is when the parties themselves have stipulated to a different child support amount depending on the entirety of the dissolution case. (Family Code 4065(a)).  The party seeking deviation from guideline child support has the burden of proof to show application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case by a preponderance of the evidence. When time comes for a party to want to modify a below guideline child support order, there is no change of circumstances needed to modify the support order. (Family Code 4065) When time comes for a party to want to modify an above guideline child support order, a material change of circumstances must be shown to modify the child support order.

Note No. 3

Can’t Wait for your Divorce Judgment?  New law in place now. 

Beginning January 1, 2026, California couples in Los Angeles County will have access to a new, streamlined pathway for ending a marriage or domestic partnership. Under Senate Bill 1427 (Chapter 190, Statutes of 2024), the Superior Court of Los Angeles County will introduce a Joint Petition for Dissolution or Legal Separation, offering an alternative to the traditional adversarial divorce process.

This new option is designed for couples who are able to work together and agree on every single issue that is in their dissolution case, specifically, issues relating to spousal support, child support, division of property and assignment of debts.  Parties who may qualify for such option shall wish to file jointly and must not qualify for a traditional Summary Dissolution.

While the Joint Petition will significantly simply the divorce process, the key requirements of still having to exchange financial disclosures must take place. The parties must also resolve all issues and come to a mutual agreement which would be reduced to a writing. The agreement will still have to be a complete judgment packet for court approval. This process will help parties resolve their case in a timely matter and will help the parties save on attorney fees and costs.

If any party believes that they are unable to proceed with the collaborative approach, the joint petition may be revoked and the parties may file for a traditional dissolution of marriage case in their local court.

Suzy S. Marjanian is a Partner at Koletsky Mancini Feldman LLP in Los Angeles practicing in the area of family law. Ms. Marjanian is also a Professor of Law at the University of West Los Angeles, School of Law teaching Torts and Legal Writing.