Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

Warning: SB 401 is being misrepresented as a Bill that will Oppose Homophobia.

Wed, 09 May 2012 18:55:00 +0000

Recently a mass email went out from Boyce Hinman, California Communities United Institute, calling for support of Bill SB 401 as a Bill that would oppose homophobia. This is untrue and support of this Bill by the LGBT community can potentially be very damaging to the LGBT community.

The Bill removes from the statute language that specifically excludes Pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Before supporting this Bill, please read the language. There is concern that support of this Bill from the LGBT community can be seen as a support of Pedophilia!

Here is the Language; decide for yourself and make an informed decision. Click here to read the proposed Bill and the propsed change to the existing statute. The proposed amendment is the removal of the language that is struck out below. The remainder is already in the existing statute.

SECTION 1. Section 32228 of the Education Code is amended to read: 32228. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that public schools serving pupils in any of grades 8 to 12, inclusive, have access to supplemental resources to establish programs and strategies that promote school safety and emphasize violence prevention among children and youth in the public schools. (b) It is also the intent of the Legislature that public schools have access to supplemental resources to combat bias on the basis ofrace, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, as defined in subdivision (r) of Section 12926 of the Government Code,and to prevent and respond to acts of hate violence and bias-related incidents. ~~Sexual orientation shall not include pedophilia.~~

Please, do not support this Bill as written. Instead the Bill, or statute, should be rewritten in a manner that more clearly reflects that Pedophilia IS NOT a sexual orientation and is not associated with Homosexuality.

Warning: Homestead Exemption in Bankruptcy

Sun, 06 May 2012 10:15:00 +0000

Warning to parties in the process of a Dissolution &/or Bankruptcy; New Case regarding Homestead Exemption.

In re Jacobson (4/23/12) 9 Cir No. 10-60040 (Judge Farris) 2012 WL 1382979

In this new case holding, dated 4/23/2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the proceeds from a forced sale of a Family Home loses their exempt status as parties’ homestead property when the parties fail to reinvest the funds in a new homestead within six months. This finding arises out of a Bankruptcy case.

Judicial Counsel Invitations To Comment

Fri, 04 May 2012 07:45:00 +0000

Judicial Counsel of California

Invitations to Comment

Family Law: Amend Forms for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership or Marriage to Correct Substantive Omissions and Other Issues

Item Number: SPR12-17

Deadline for Comments: June 15, 2012 5:00 PM (Pacific)

Click here to Comment Online

or Comment by email to: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Summary:

Family law practitioners have indicated that forms FL-103 and FL-123 contain substantive omissions and formatting errors which make them unusable by some parties for whom the forms were intended. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory propose correcting the forms so that they are consistent with their stated purpose.

Click here to read the Proposed changes

Family Law: Revisions to Adoption Forms

Item Number: SPR12-18

Deadline for Comments: June 15, 2012 5:00 PM (Pacific)

Click here to Comment Online

or Comment by email to: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Summary:

The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee proposes to revise two Judicial Council forms for use in adoption proceedings. Changes are needed to conform to new legislation, Assembly Bill 687, which allows the court to issue orders of adoption nunc pro tunc in certain cases. Other proposed changes respond to many suggestions the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has received from courts and other users to make the forms both easier to use and more comprehensive.

Click here to read the Proposed changes.

Protective Orders: Notice of New Hearing and Order on Reissuance

Item Number: SPR12-25

Deadline for Comments: June 15, 2012 5:00 PM (Pacific)

Click here to Comment Online

or Comment by email to: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Summary:

The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to the Notice of New Hearing and Order on Reissuance (form DV-116) to reduce confusion and promote safety, as suggested by courts and members of the public.

Click here to read the Proposed changes

Protective Orders: Emergency Protective Order Form

Item Number: SPR12-26

Deadline for Comments: June 15, 2012 5:00 PM (Pacific)

Click here to Comment Online

or Comment by email to: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Summary:

The proposal would revise the Emergency Protective Order to highlight the firearms provisions that apply when the order is issued and to collect information whether firearms have been reported, observed, searched for, or seized in the case. In addition, the Emergency Protective Order would be reorganized and other changes would be made so that the form will be more effective and easier to understand. This proposal to revise the emergency protective order form was developed by the Protective Orders Working Group based on suggestions from the Domestic Violence Practice and Procedure Task Force.

Click here to read the Proposed changes

Official Court Notice re: Department of Child Support Services case files. April 19, 2012

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:05:00 +0000

ACCESS TO DCSS COURT FILES AND RECORDS

The court has had occasion to reexamine the law regarding the confidentiality of court files involving the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). The court’s analysis and conclusions clarify both public and attorney access to these files, in particular, paternity judgments.

DCSS cases are typically, but not always, designated as a “DF” court file indicating the case is being heard in the San Diego Family Support Division (FSD). DCSS is the state agency created to implement and maintain the California state plan for the support enforcement program created through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. DCSS has the power and authority to request support orders, enforce existing support orders and, when necessary, seek a final determination of parentage. DCSS and the California state plan are governed by federal law, the California Code of Regulations and the California Family Code §17000 et seq.. As to the confidentiality of court files, the law provides as follows:

“A State plan for child and spousal support must have in effect…safeguards against unauthorized use or disclosure of information relating to proceedings or actions to establish paternity, or to establish, modify, or enforce support.” 42 U.S.C.A §654(26)(A).

“[S]upport information used in the administration of the Title IV-D Program shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program…information means all files, applications, papers, documents, and records including those maintained in electronic format, on microfilm or microfiche.” 22 Cal. Code Reg. §111430(a).

“[A]ll files, applications, papers, documents, and records established or maintained by any public entity pursuant to the administration and implementation of the child and spousal support enforcement program established pursuant to Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and this division, shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination or released for disclosure for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program. No public entity shall disclose any file, application, paper, document, or record, or the information contained therein, except as expressly authorized by this section.” Fam. Code §17212(b)(1).

Based on this analysis, the court believes that the law mandates that the entirety of a San Diego court file opened by DCSS as part of its support enforcement program is confidential and not available for public inspection. This includes parentage judgments made in DCSS support enforcement cases which are, likewise, governed by the specific statutory scheme enacted for the administration of the Title IV-D support enforcement program. Public access to a parentage judgment in a DCSS case is not governed by Family Code §7643(b) under the Uniform Parentage Act.

Further, because all papers, documents and records established or maintained by the court pursuant to the Title IV-D support enforcement program are governed by the specific law for Title IV-D cases, any and all DCSS-related documents in a non-FSD court file are also confidential and not available for public inspection. Finally, because DCSS cases and DCSS related documents in non-FSD cases are not governed by the Uniform Parentage Act, the law does not allow for access to any part of the DCSS court file, or a DCSS related document in a non-FSD court file, by an agent with written authorization pursuant to Family Code §7643(b).

Any questions regarding this change in access to court records should be directed to Michael M. Roddy, Executive Officer of the San Diego Superior Court.

Upcoming NVC Program Opportunities

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:45:00 +0000

Upcoming Non-Violent Communications Programs

April 25, 2012 to May 16, 2012 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM ET: Coaching for Transformation with Martha Lasley. This 6-hour distance learning course gives you an empowering approach to coaching based on Nonviolent Communication consciousness.

June 8, 2012 to June 10, 2012 5:00 PM to 1:00 PM CT: Zen & Nonviolent Communication - Relationship with Self with Zen Master Dae Gak, Martha Lasley, Daniela Myozen Herzog, Daniel Boone National Forest, KY. Explores how the wisdom of Buddhist consciousness and the tools of Nonviolent Communication can work together to transform suffering into peace of mind and how they can help raise compassionate awareness in everyday life.

June 11, 2012 to June 20, 2012 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM ET: Nonviolent Communication International Intensive Training with Katherine Singer, Martha Lasley, Christine King, Dow Gordon in Albuquerque, NM. This International Intensive Training is a 9-day, Nonviolent Communication immersion experience.

May 2, 2012 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM ET: Coaching certification program. The Power of Coaching with Mary Kuentz. This introductory session allows you to experience coaching and ask questions about the Coaching for Transformation program.

If you want to explore any of these events further, contact Martha Lasley at 570-297-2270 or by email at: Martha@LeadershipthatWorks.com.

New Office Address

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:45:00 +0000

Our office has moved to a new space in the same building.

Please make note of our new address:

Family Legal Ease

10650 Scripps Ranch Blvd., Ste 131

San Diego, CA 92131

The Fight for FAIR Education Understanding SB 48

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:35:00 +0000

The Fight for FAIR Education Understanding Senate Bill 48

Posted by GSDBA on April 3, 2012 at 1:52pm

View Blog By Rivka Israel, Esq.

Family Legal Ease, Law Office of Rivka Israel, Esq.

On July 13, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 48, also known as the FAIR Education Act (Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act). This bill then became law on July 14, 2011, and actually went into effect in January of 2012.

Senate Bill 48 was initially introduced in the Senate in December 2010. Prior to the adoption of this law, the existing law required that instruction in social sciences include the contributions of men, women and other specified categories of persons to the development of California and the United States in general. Though the previously existing law did prohibit instruction or the adoption of textbooks or other educational materials that reflected adversely or promoted discrimination based on race, sex, color, creed, handicap, and other categories, the lack of a specific legal requirement to include the contributions of these groups enabled discrimination in education via exclusion of contributions of these classes of individuals to the development of California and the United States. The newly enacted and effective law requires schools to add not only the contributions of LGBT Americans in educational materials to their curriculum, but those of disabled Americans and other minorities as well. This is significant because inclusion of the contributions of these individuals has been shown to lead to a more general acceptance and respect for these classes of people and less hatred and discrimination against them.

Since the adoption of this law, there have been groups who have sought to repeal it. In November of 2011, two groups in particular have sought statewide ballot initiatives for the November 2012 elections. The initiatives of both these groups have now been approved for circulation and signatures. Of these two groups, one has sought to reach their desired Anti-LGBT goal by leaving the new law largely intact in their proposed legislation and primarily removing all references to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender Americans, and sexual orientation. In doing so they are less likely to offend the other minority groups included in the new legislation. This approach is especially dangerous for the LGBT community as it removes their actions from the interests and attentions of the other minority groups remaining unaffected by the proposed changes, leaving the LGBT community and its supporters to fight this battle on their own.

Though this subject may, to some, not seem much of a concern, it is crucial that these Anti-LGBT groups not succeed in the objective of suppressing the contributions of our community and those of other minorities to the history of California and United States in general. This law has a direct influence on our children in the way they view themselves, their parents, and the place of both in society in general.

…………………………..

Rivka Israel, Esq. is a local Family Law attorney who focuses a good deal of her practice on the LGBT community and can be reached at LavenderLegal@yahoo.com, by telephone at (858) IT’S-EASY (487-3279) or on the web at FamilyLegalEase.com

Other Useful Resources:

oag.ca.gov

www.familylegalease.com/documentsofinterest.htm

www.care2.com

New Paternity Case - Court of Appeals In Re: D.A. 3/28/12

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:05:00 +0000

An interesting new Paternity case was certified forpublication on 3/28/2012.

In Re: D.A. (3/28/12) 2 Civ B230987, B233283, Div 1(Rothschild) 2012 WL 1021443

Read Full Text

This case contains some interesting facts and findings. This case arose in the Juvenile Court and addresses the Paternity finding of a six month old child. There are a few aspects of this case that make it especially interesting. First, it demonstrates that the placement of one’s name on a birth-certificate does not guarantee parentage or grant parental rights. In addition, the Court of Appeals in this case identifies the specific criteria on which Presumed Father is determined asbetween two competing individuals. Finally, this case clearly reflects significant problems with our court systems to whom we turn to determine ourrights and on whom we rely to protect our children.

This case should be of interest to any man who suspects thathe is the biological father of a child and is being denied any involvement or contact by the mother.

The Court of Appeals held that Father qualified as Kelsey S. father by: taking Mother to prenatal medical appointments, seeking genetic testing upon being informed of pregnancy, offering to help with Mother’s expenses, trying to keep in contact with Mother during her pregnancy and afterward, seeking to establish a relationship with the child by requesting access from the Juvenile Court, and having his paternity confirmed by genetic testing.

LGBT/D3 Mayoral Candidate Forum

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:20:00 +0000

LGBT/D3 Mayoral Candidate Forum

When: Wednesday, March 28, 6:00 to 7:30pm

Where: San Diego LGBT Community Center, 3909 Centre Street, San Diego, 92103

Confirmed attendance:

Bonnie Dumanis, Bob Filner, and Nathan Fletcher

Moderator:

Tom Fudge, Morning Edition Anchor at KPBS

Sponsoring Organizations:

The San Diego LGBT Community CenterLog Cabin RepublicansSan Diego Democrats for Equality (formerly San Diego Democratic Club)Greater San Diego Business Association (GSDBA)LGBT Pride San Diego

For more information, please contact dserrano@thecentersd.org or visit facebook.com/at.the.center

New CA Rules of Court effective July 1, 2012

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Family Law and Juvenile Proceedings

California Rules of Court

Changes Effective July 1, 2012

Rule 5.407. Review of judgments based on default and uncontested judgments submitted by declaration under Family Code section 2336

Once a valid proof of serviceof summons has been filed with the court or respondent has made a general appearance in the case:

(a) Court review

The court must conduct a procedural review all the documents submitted for judgment based on default or uncontested judgments submitted under Family Code section 2336 and notify the attorneys or self-represented litigants who submitted them of all identified defects.

(b) Notice of errors and omissions

Basic information for correction of the defects must be included in any notification to attorneys or self-represented litigants made under (a).

(Rule 5.407 adopted effective July 1, 2012)

Rule 5.409. Default and uncontested hearings on judgments submitted on the basis of declarations under Family Code section 2336

The decision to hold a hearing in a case in which a judgment has been submitted on the basis of a declaration under Family Code section 2336 should be made on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the court or request of a party. Courts must allow judgments in default and uncontested cases to be submitted by declaration pursuant to section 2336 and must not require that a hearing be conducted in all such cases.

(Rule 5.409 adopted effective July 1, 2012.)