On January 1, 2010, California law will change to help prevent spouses from obstructing the completion of a divorce by failing or refusing to satisfy disclosure requirements. Assembly Bill 459 does not change the disclosure requirements themselves, but adds "an additional option" for when one party who has complied with the rule but the other has not. Here is how the Legislative Counsel's Digest explains the bill:

Existing law requires each party to a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties to serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets, as specified, and a final declaration of disclosure, as specified, unless service of the final disclosure is waived. Existing law requires each party to serve a preliminary declaration of disclosure after or concurrently with service of the petition for dissolution or nullity of marriage, or legal separation of the parties. If a party fails to serve a preliminary or final declaration of disclosure, as specified, or fails to provide information required in those declarations with sufficient particularity, if the other party has served the respective declaration of disclosure, and if the noncomplying party also fails to comply with a request for the preparation of the appropriate declaration of disclosure or further particularity, existing law authorizes the complying party to file a motion to compel a further response or for an order preventing the noncomplying party from presenting evidence on issues that should have been covered in the declaration of disclosure.

Existing law generally prohibits entry of judgment with respect to the parties' property rights unless each party, or the attorney for that party, has executed and served a copy of the final declaration of disclosure and current income and expense declaration. Existing law requires a court to set aside a judgment when the parties have failed to comply with all disclosure requirements, as specified.

This bill would add, as an additional option that a complying party may pursue if the noncomplying party fails to comply with the request described above, the option to file a motion showing good cause to grant the complying party's voluntary waiver of receipt of the noncomplying party's disclosure, as specified. If that motion is granted, the bill would require the court to set aside a judgment only at the request of the complying party, unless the motion is based on actual fraud or perjury, as specified.

So AB 459 is designed to solve a problem that arises when both parties have appeared in the dissolution action but one of them refuses to provide the required disclosures: the court is not allowed to enter a judgment of dissolution. Under the new law, so long as one party complies, that party can ask the court to approve a waiver of the right to receive disclosures from the other party. But the noncomplying party has an incentive not to let this happen: if that waiver is approved, then only he complying party can have the judgment set aside, unless the request is based on "actual fraud" or "perjury." In other words, one spouse cannot hide assets, refuse to provide disclosures, and then turn around after the judgment is entered and try to have that judgment set aside—unless he or she can show that the complying party lied in his or her disclosures or committed some other kind of fraud that prevented the noncomplying party from complying. 

One of the obstacles waiting for people when they embark on the swirling seas of family court litigation is disclosure. Any time we ask the court to divide up marital property, determine an amount of spousal or child support, or award attorney's fees, the court needs lots and lots of information about the parties' property, money, and debts. In California, most family court litigants are (or will soon become) familiar with forms like the Schedule of Assets and Debts and the Income and Expense Declaration (or the Financial Statement (Simplified)). (Those are all links to PDFs, by the way.) Completing those forms is not quite as onerous as doing your taxes or preparing a bankruptcy petition, but when you're already worried about your children, your finances, your relationships, and all the other problems that bring people into the family court, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. Fortunately, there are some things you can do to make life easier—and they happen to be good ideas even if you never find yourself in family court.

Keep Good Records

Before you do anything else, get your records organized. Find a safe place to keep paycheck stubs, bank statements, mortgage documents or rental or lease agreements, vehicle registration and maintenance records, bills (whether you paid them or not), tax returns, and any other document that shows money or property you receive, money you owe, stuff you own, and real estate you own or occupy. This can be especially easy when you're doing things online. Most banks and businesses can give you statements and other documents in Portable Document Format (PDF), which you can save on your computer for easy viewing or printing later. For things that you don't have on the computer, the least you can do is buy an expandable folder with several slots to keep different kinds of documents. If you want to invest more money, buy a small file cabinet, or even a safe for your really important documents.

Documents for big things, like tax returns and receipts for major purchases, should be kept for seven years. Bills can be discarded more quickly, but you should probably keep them for a year. Use your discretion. But you would also do well to keep track of regular and recurring expenses somewhere. There are some software tools for personal finance management, like Quicken, which you might want to use, but I just use ordinary spreadsheet software. (I have a Mac and use Numbers. On Windows, Microsoft Excel can do the trick, too.) For example, I use a spreadsheet to keep a list of payments on utility bills, so I can see clearly how my utility costs are changing over time, which allows me to plan better for the future. If you are not comfortable using spreadsheet software, buy a notebook and write down the dates and amounts for these expenses. This comes in handy when you are making a budget. There are also some excellent apps for the iPhone.

Keeping all of these records also makes it easier when you need them for something important, like going into family court, filing for bankruptcy, or just planning for your future. Keeping track of these things will give you a sense of greater control over your life, too. 

Watch Your Spending

You need to be conscious of where your money is going. If you have no idea what you spend each month on, say, groceries and dining out, then you probably have a hard time keeping your spending within reasonable limits. It's much easier to prepare for the future, plan your expenses, and live comfortably within your means if you pay attention to where every dollar goes. And if you have never paid attention to these details before, you might be surprised by what's revealed when you start.

Keep receipts whenever you buy things. Write down what you spend in certain categories, like gas and car expenses, dining out, clothing, or other things you regularly purchase. (The categories will probably be unique. For example, I categorize spending on books because I am one of those people who can barely stand to walk past a bookstore without buying something. If you collect something, make a category for it.) This is another place where spreadsheet or specific financial software can be useful.

Make a Budget

One of the best ways to help keep your life in order is to keep track of where your money goes. I know you've heard this before, but make a budget. It's not as hard as you might think. Follow the steps below.

First, figure out your income. If you work for wages or a salary, you probably get paid once a month, twice a month, or biweekly. Figure out how much you bring home every month (your net pay) by looking at your paycheck stubs. For people who are paid once or twice a month, this should be pretty easy.

If you get paid biweekly, then you can approximate your monthly income by taking the usual amount of your paycheck, multiplying times 26 (for the number of checks you get each year), and then dividing by 12 (for the number of months in the year). For example, if you take home $1,500 every two weeks, then $1,500 times 26 is $39,000, and that divided by 12 gives you net monthly income of $3,250.

If your paychecks vary, then figure out an average. This is one of the reasons why it's important to keep good records. You will need to be able to look back six months to a year, add up your net pay, and figure out an average that will help you with budgeting. If your attitude has always been that your income varies and it's not worth trying to predict it, you are probably wrong about exactly how much it varies and are missing out on a valuable opportunity to take control of your financial future.

Second, make a list of all your obligations. This includes all the bills you have to pay and all your usual monthly expenses. Make a list of when those bills are due. If you get paid twice a month, you might want to figure out if your month is lopsided, with more bills to pay during one half than the other, and ask some of your creditors to adjust your due dates. You should also figure out your non-monthly expenses, like property taxes, and figure out the monthly average for those. Get in the habit of depositing that average amount into your savings account and holding that money until those non-monthly bills come due. So, for instance, if you pay property tax is $1,500 twice a year, then you might set aside $250 every month ($3,000 divided by 12) and do not spend it until you need it to pay the property tax bill. You can add that $250 to your budget like any other monthly expense.

For day-to-day expenditures, like what you spend on food or gas for your car, this is another time when having good records is helpful: look back over the last six months to a year and figure out a monthly average for each category. Use that average as a starting point for your budget. For example, if you see that you're spending $500 a month on eating out and that number seems high to you, then set yourself a lower budget and try to stay within it.

Third, add up your numbers, make a plan, and stick to it. On a sheet of paper, or with your favorite software application, write down all your obligations and expenses. Add them up. Compare that total with your monthly income. If all your expenses amount to less than your total income, you are doing well. Try to stay within your budget. Better yet, see if you can cut some of your spending and increase your savings. But if your total expenses are greater than your total income, then you need to make some cuts. Stay within your budget. Do not spend more than you can afford. Do not live off your credit cards. If you are not earning enough money to live comfortably, then look for ways to supplement or increase your income.

Conclusion

This is just basic stuff. There are plenty of more complicated things you can do—things you should see a financial advisor about. But everybody should do these basic things, no matter how much you earn, no matter how much you have.

Keeping good records, watching over your spending, and sticking to a budget may sound like a lot of work, and it is, but you will be glad you did it. Be consistent. Turn it into a habit. You will feel better about yourself and more confident in your financial decisions. Instead of feeling like your financial situation is a mystery, you will know where you stand. And when the time comes to make decisions or disclosures, no matter the reason, you will be prepared. You might even find yourself avoiding those kinds of situations in the first place.

Recent developments in California law make it easier for courts to terminate the rights of parents whose children are in a legal guardianship. Whether that's good or bad will probably depend on your perspective. Grandparents trying to protect a grandchild from a cruel or abusive parent will probably hail the recent development as a boon to grandparents' rights. But parents in a period of difficulty who are considering whether to leave a child in the custody of a legal guardian may see this as a terrifying slippery slope to losing parental rights. I have seen people on both sides of that divide and can confidently say that there is rarely an easy solution. But people should know the law that affects their rights, so I want to explain the situation.

First, before I say any more, please remember that nothing I write here is intended as legal advice and you should not take it as legal advice. Your situation is unique and if you need legal assistance or guidance then you should contact an attorney in your area. If you are in the central San Joaquin Valley and would like to meet with me, my office is in Fresno. To set an appointment for a consultation, please contact my firm through its website.

A Little Background 

To understand the importance of the recent development, you need a little background knowledge. Before a child can be adopted, the parents must consent to the adoption or their parental rights must be terminated. The California Family Code lists several grounds for termination of parental rights, such as abandonment, neglect or cruel treatment, that the parent has been convicted of a felony that demonstrates his or her unfitness as a parent, or that the parent is developmentally disabled or or mentally ill. (There are other grounds for termination, but those are probably the most commonly used, that I have seen.) When someone wants to adopt a child without the consent of one or more parents, he or she can file a petition with the court alleging one or more of those grounds. Common situations are where the child's caretaker wishes to adopt and the parents do not consent, or where a stepparent wishes to adopt, and the non-custodial parent will not consent.

In 2003, the Legislature added a section to the California Probate Code (section 1516.5) to establish a new ground for terminating the rights of parents whose children are in the custody of a legal guardian. Under the new section, if one or both parents do not have legal custody, the child has been in the physical custody of the legal guardian for at least two years, and it would benefit the child to be adopted by the the legal guardian, the guardian can ask the court to terminate the rights of the parents.

If that seems to you like a surprisingly easy way to lose parental rights, you are not alone. Two different parents recently challenged the constitutionality of section 1516.5. They argued, in different ways, that since parents have a "fundamental liberty interest" in the care, control, custody, and companionship of their minor children, a court cannot terminate their parental rights without finding the parents to be "unfit." Since section 1516.5 does not require a finding of "unfitness," they argued, it violates due process under the United States Constitution. In other words, they argued that section 1516.5 made it too easy for the court to terminate their parental rights. In a pair of opinions issued on March 19, 2009—Guardianship of Ann S. and In re Charlotte D.—the California Supreme Court disagreed.

Before I explain any further, it is important to understand that the guardianship must be a legal one before Probate Code section 1516.5 comes into play. Termination of parental rights under section 1516.5 is not available for children who have been left with a relative or a caretaker in an informal guardianship. When I say "legal guardianship," I am talking about what is also called "probate guardianship," because the Probate Code provides the statutory basis for establishing the guardianship.

Guardianship of Ann S. 

In Ann S., a mother with major substance abuse problems agreed to let another couple have legal guardianship of her 18-month-old daughter, Ann, with no visitation rights. Not long after, she pled guilty to a felony theft charge and received a 32-month prison sentence. While she was incarcerated, the guardians filed a petition to adopt Ann, but the mother refused to consent. So they tried to terminate her parental rights on the ground of abandonment or conviction of a felony demonstrating unfitness, but the court said no. All of that was before January 1, 2004, when section 1516.5 became effective. So in February 2004, after discovering this new ground for termination of parental rights, the guardians tried again, this time under section 1516.5. The court granted their petition to terminate parental rights and the mother appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the termination and the mother petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the ruling.

Here is one paragraph from the Supreme Court's opinion in Ann S. that explains the outcome pretty clearly:

Mother argues that section 1516.5 is unconstitutional because it permits the termination of parental rights based only on the child's best interest. She contends due process requries a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is presently unfit, or that terminating parental rights is the least detrimental alternative for the child. Her claims are based on a parent's fundamnetal interest in "the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children." [Citations.] It is noteworthy, however, that while mothre invokes the due process protections courts have developed to protect this interest, she is not seeking to obtain the interest here. Neither she nor any other parent in a section 1516.5 proceeding has or stands to gain the companionship, care, custody, or management of the child. If the mother defeats the effort to terminate her parental rights, the guardianship continues and those rights remain in a state of suspension.

In other words, when the mother agreed to the guardianship of her child, she essentially gave up her interest in parenting that child, leaving nothing to be protected by requiring a finding of unfitness, and making the best interest of the child the only thing that matters. As the Court pointed out a little later, in footnote 16 of its opinion, "Section 1516.5 has made the eventual termination of parental rights a potential consequence of establishing a probate guardianship[.]" More on that below.

The main holding of Ann S. is that California Probate Code section 1516.5 is "facially constitutional," meaning that it has no inherent constitutional defects, but that individual parents may challenge it on the grounds that applying it to them, in their particular circumstances, would be unconstitutional. (Lawyers and legal scholars call that an "as-applied challenge" because people who raise such a challenge are only saying the law is unconstitutional as applied to them.)

The mother in Ann S. also argued that section 1516.5 should not be applied to her because she agreed to the guardianship before that section became effective. But section 3 of the California Probate Code says that new provisions of the Probate Code affect "all matters governed by the new law, regardless of whether an event occurred or circumstance existed before, on, or after the operative date," unless making a new law applicable to something that happened before it became effective would "substantially interfere with . . . the rights of the parties or other interested persons in connection with an event that occurred or circumstance that existed before the opperative date"—in which case the court can choose whether to apply the old or new law. So the Supreme Court looked at the mother's situation to decide whether the exception should apply. No such luck. First, the mother only said she "probably" would not have consented to the guardianship if section 1516.5 had been effective. Second, the mother's severe substance abuse problems probably would have resulted in a juvenile dependency proceeding even if she had not consented to the guardianship. One way or another, the Supreme Court said, this mother was going to lose her daughter, so there was no point in not applying the new law.

In re Charlotte D. 

In Charlotte D., a father argued that section 1516.5 should not apply to him because terminating his parental rights without finding that he was "unfit" would be unconstitutional under Adoption of Kelsey S., a California Supreme Court opinion from 1992.

In Kelsey S., the Court held that if a mother who wanted to give her child up for adoption prevented the father from coming forward and establishing his fatherhood in order to keep him from becoming a "presumed father" under California law—which means his consent would be required for an adoption—then if the father "sufficiently and timely demonstrated a full commitment to his parental responsibilities," the court could not allow the adoption without his consent unless it found that he was unfit. In other words, if a mother could keep the father of her child from getting involved, then she could give the child up for adoption but the father would have no way to protect his parental rights. Essentially, the mother could unilaterally decide that the father would have no right to be a parent, which gives mothers more rights than unwed fathers. That, said the Court, violated unwed fathers' right to equal protection and due process.

But in Charlotte D., the Supreme Court said that Kelsey S. did not apply, first because the mother had not prevented the father from asserting his rights, and second because section 1516.5 "does not prescribe a different standard for terminating the rights of natural fathers than it does for mothers or presumed fathers." The Court did suggest, however, that it is "conceivable that a parent faced with the termination of his or her rights under section 1516.5 would be in a position to assert a due process claim based on a showing analogous to the one we outlined in Kelsey S." In other words, "[i]t seems unlikely that a court would find it in a child's best interest under section 1516.5 to terminate the rights of a fully committed, responsible, and capable parent who finds an extended probate guardianship unavoidable under exigent circumstances." But the father in Charlotte D. did not meet that standard, so the Court affirmed the termination of his parental rights under section 1516.5.

What does all of this mean?

Put simply, legal guardians can adopt the children in their custody relatively easily, without the consent of the children's parents, by bringing a petition to terminate parental rights under Probate Code section 1516.5. This is especially important for many grandparents who have established legal guardianship of their grandchildren. Now they have a clear path to adopting those children and putting away their fears that the parents will one day return and make legal trouble for them. Essentially, after two years of legal guardianship, the guardians only need to show that adoption is in the children's best interest and the court can terminate parental rights.

From the other side of the coin, however, these cases highlight the continued development of our law and society away from the importance of parental rights and toward the goal of ensuring that children have caretakers who serve their "best interest." Our laws are more interested in making sure that children have a stable home life than in preserving the biological or emotional ties of parents to their children. We have spent the last few decades upping the ante for parents. We recognize those biological and emotional ties, but parents who are not zealous in maintaining those ties and taking seriously the job of parenting stand to lose their parental rights very easily.

As a practical matter, these cases mean that when a parent consents to the legal guardianship of his or her child, the clock starts ticking. Two years later, if that guardianship is still in effect and the parent has done nothing to demonstrate that he or she is "a fully committed, responsible, and capable parent who finds an extended probate guardianship unavoidable under exigent circumstances," then the rights of that parent will be hanging by a thread. A petition under Probate Code section 1516.5 is all it will take to snip the thread. Since termination of parental rights is a potential consequence of consenting to legal guardianship, parents should look at legal guardianship only as a temporary status. Otherwise, it is the beginning of the end. Parents who find themselves in those exigent circumstances that necessitate a legal guardianship should recognize those circumstances as a signal to make major and immediate changes in their lifestyle if they want to keep their kids.

We can argue the wisdom of this tendency—and I'll be the first to express unease with where we seem to be headed—but this is the law for now. The moral of the story is simple: if you want to have children and you want to keep your children, then you need to be a good parent. Criminal, abusive, or addictive behaviors are not good for you, they are not good for your children, and, depending on your circumstances, they may just give the government a means to oust you from your parental role. Parents do have rights, but when then take those rights for granted and trample all over them with bad behavior, the courts will not be impressed and those rights are likely to be terminated.

Finally, as I said above, nothing I write here is intended as legal advice and it should not be taken as legal advice. I do not know your unique situation. If you would like to set an appointment for a consultation, please contact my firm through its website. 

While doing a some online research regarding domestic violence and battered woman syndrome, I found an excellent free resource that I wanted to share. It's called The Women's Rights Handbook and it comes from the website of the California Attorney General's Office. In particular, Chapter 7 has information about violent crimes committed against women and children, including advice for how to defend yourself in an attack, definitions of "sexual assault" and "domestic violence," and information about how to deal with domestic violence when it happens to you.

Other chapters of The Women's Rights Handbook discuss your legal rights relating to many areas of life, including employment, economic independence, education, housing, health care, domestic relations, and child care. The last chapter includes a directory for finding services and more information. You may also want to look at the domestic violence brochure (PDF) put out by the California Attorney General's Office.

Please remember, however, that your computer is probably keeping track of what you view online. If you are using a computer at home, someone else might be able to see which websites you have viewed. If you do not know how to "cover your tracks" by using a privacy mode or deleting history and cookies, then you should probably look at these websites from a computer in the home of someone you trust, or in a public library.

In the first two sentences of a recent opinion from the California Court of Appeal, Justice Gilbert offers a nugget of wisdom that everybody with a legal problem needs to remember:

Parties agree to act reasonably in their contractual relationship. This case demonstrates that when a party acts unreasonably, no one prospers, except the attorneys.

Don't give too much weight to that first sentence—you shouldn't be acting unreasonably even when you're not in a contractual relationship. I've put the important lesson in boldface: When somebody in a legal matter acts unreasonably, no one prospers except the attorneys.

In Peak-Las Positas Partners v. Bollag, a series of events, many of which were government procedures beyond the parties' control, delayed the finalization of a real property deal. The parties agreed to extend the escrow on the deal once, but the second time an extension became necessary, one of the parties flat refused—even though the other party had already spent about $5 million trying to get their project going and to comply with government requirements! This, said the court, was unreasonable (despite several rationalizations offered by the defendant). In affirming the order that defendant pay more than half a million dollars in attorneys' fees to the plaintiff, the court noted that the defendant had "interjected collateral issues to complicate the litigation" and that his "vigorous defense necessitated a great deal of work by experienced attorneys."

Work by attorneys, experienced or not, is usually expensive—especially when the case requires "a great deal" of it. The defendant in that case could have saved everybody a lot of money by being reasonable and agreeing to extend the escrow on the deal. But he didn't. And then he made a "vigorous defense" of his position and "interjected collateral issues to complicate the litigation."

This is why, when you seek an attorney, you need to think about more than just what you want. It's easy to get lost in your goals. You think, "That other person is so bad! I need to make him or her pay!" We see this a lot in family law, where the disputes can be especially bitter. People end up fighting over every little detail. Nobody wants to give an inch. Things get dragged out. All the dirty laundry is put on display. But this is expensive, and adopting a more reasonable attitude can save a truckload of money. (And keep you from annoying the court, too. Do you really think the judge wants to preside over a fight between people who are acting unreasonably? Judges are supposed to be impartial, but you don't want to take your chances by getting on the judge's bad side.)

Be aware, however, that some issues in family law really are so important that a hardline, no-settle position is justified. In those cases, fighting hard might be reasonable. But most cases can be resolved more easily than that. Before you decide to dig in your heels, you need to evaluate your position rationally when you talk to your attorney, who can help you see past the emotional issues that might be clouding your view.

And sometimes the other party can drag you down. You need to think about that before you get involved. If you are pretty sure that the other party is going to fight you every step of the way, then be ready to pay more attorney fees, or reconsider your goals. You should also talk to your attorney about the personal quirks of the other party. (This is usually possible in family law because the parties ordinarily know each other very well. It's less possible in civil litigation, where the parties would often be strangers if not for the problem that brought them into court.) Is there a way to approach the issue that will result in a more reasonable—and less costly—response?

Fighting things out in a lawsuit will always be expensive. Talk to your attorney about acting strategically, instead of just coming down from on high with a flaming sword of (what you think will be) justice. Remember that courts are set up to solve problems. When you use the court to get revenge, instead of to solve a problem, you will probably suffer as much as your opponent. While the battle rages, the attorneys will be working. Fees and costs will keep adding up. By the time you finally "win," you may not feel much like a winner. But your attorney wasn't working for free, and he or she will expect you to pay your bill.

So remember the short sentence from the case I quoted above: "When a party acts on reasonably, no one prospers, except the attorneys."

Finally, please remember that nothing I write here is intended as legal advice for you, so you should not take that way. Your situation is unique and you should speak to a local attorney if you have a legal issue. If you would like to speak to me, please visit the website for my firm. There you can contact my office and set up a consultation.

Several California lawmakers and advocacy groups want to reform our family courts. They cite problems like "inconsistent behavior," the use of non-scientific theories, such as "parental alienation syndrome," and the failure to follow "the legal principals of accepted evidence." Dealing with child abuse has also been problematic. In some counties, children have been placed in homes with abusers and people with criminal records, apparently because child custody evaluators are not required to have a high level of training.

In other words, the reformers want family courts to be consistent and predictable, they want those courts to rely only on evidence that's admissible under the same rules that apply in other courts, and they want nonjudicial court staff to have the level of training we would expect from people who are, in essence, making important decisions about the lives of children and families. They also want whistleblower protection for family court employees. These reforms would probably be helpful. But a level of fairness and predictability that satisfies everyone may not be possible.

Family courts exist in a strange and difficult realm of law. People involved in families have their own expectations for how their family relationships are supposed to work, and what kinds of obligations will arise from them, while the laws that apply to those relationships are typically based on the public policy goals expressed by the Legislature. Some people, like spouses, enter family relationships voluntarily, but others, like children, have no choice. There are ways for people to opt out of the legislated rules for some things (like the community property system), but no way to opt out of others (like the duty to pay child support). And even when opting out is possible, as with the community property system, most people don't know how, and the law makes it difficult to succeed even if they do know how.

In short, the field of family law is like a big battle between our most basic human impulses—love, sex, companionship—and one of the most sophisticated methods of organizing and controlling a population that has ever been devised—legislation. Right in the middle of that battlefield, making things extraordinarily difficult, is our ability to create new people who never got to decide on their circumstances. Almost everyone agrees that parents are not the omnipotent rulers of their children's lives, but finding the boundary between the rights of parents and the rights of children can be exceedingly difficult.

No one should be surprised that family courts, who have to sort out all those people and their problems and try to be fair, are beset with problems like inconsistency and unpredictability. In recent decades, we have tried to improve the system by making it less adversarial and more therapeutic. But a lot of people are still not happy with family courts, and probably never will be. Our system can be especially frustrating for attorneys because we want to see predictability and patterns, things that will help us advise our clients: If you do this, then that will happen. Sometimes, we just can't do that. Or what we think is good advice turns out to be not-so-good advice. And then nobody is happy.

But before you start to worry about the court, remember that you still have control of your own life. You can make good decisions for yourself and for your children, you can work on your communication skills and try to make agreements with your ex-spouse, or others involved in your situation. Some problems will always need to be solved by judges, but many of the most complicated and emotionally difficult problems can be addressed by the people who are dealing with them directly.

If you are facing the prospect of going to family court, you should remember that judges cannot—and probably don't want to—solve all your problems. Talk to your attorney and see if you can get to the bottom of things. Attorneys are very good at examining your problems from arm's length, without the emotional confusion you might feel, and helping you figure out that one or two things is really causing the whole blow-up that you're experiencing. Address those things, and the rest of the problems will often solve themselves, or at least seem much more manageable.

Finally, as usual, remember that nothing I write here is intended as legal advice for you, and it should not be taken as legal advice for you. Your situation is unique and you should speak to a local attorney if you have a family law issue. If you would like to speak to me, please visit the website for my firm. There you can contact my office and set up a consultation.

It's Kids Day here in Fresno, so make sure you buy a copy of the special edition of The Fresno Bee from one of the many volunteers out there. Your donation goes to support Children's Hospital of Central California. 

The Dallas Morning News today has an article by Pamela Yip, with some good tips from family law attorneys for people on either end of child and spousal support obligations when financial situations turn bad. (In the article, which comes from Texas, you will see the word "alimony." That's the same thing as "spousal support." Some jurisdictions talk about "alimony," other jurisdictions, like California, talk about "spousal support.")

If you're in a bad financial situation, and there's a child or spousal support obligation in the mix, you might want to read Yip's article. Here are some of the ideas for the person making the payments, from the attorneys Yip quotes, with a few observations of my own:

You should "be upfront" and honest with your spouse or the other parent when problems arise. That's good advice generally, especially when you have problems that may involve lawyers. Hiding the truth, lying, or playing games with the other party is only going to drive up the cost of the dispute.

You should "be prepared to cut your spending." That's especially true if you're dealing with child support. Courts deciding child support disputes have said again and again that every parent's first obligation is his or her child. If the court feels that you are spending too much money on yourself, to the detriment of your child, don't hold your breath for court-ordered relief.

Yip's article suggests that you should "offer alternatives," such as non-monetary support. In some cases, where the relationship between the parties is not friendly enough to handle anything more than sending checks, other alternatives may not be viable. But you might want to re-evaluate your position and think about working on that relationship. The marriage or dating relationship might be over, with no hope of revival, but if you're still tied to each other through a support obligation, holding old grudges and using the obligation to push the other person around will never be helpful.

From the other end, for the person receiving the payments, Yip and her attorneys have a few ideas, too:

When the person making the payments comes to you and explains a problem making payments, you should "trust, but verify" and "hear your ex-spouse out." Again, that's just good advice generally. Offering your trust can get you a long way in a dispute, but don't let anybody steamroll you with unfounded claims. Check things out, but be reasonable. Listen to what the other person is saying.

"Don't limit your thinking." Yip quotes a Dallas family law attorney, Janet Brumley: "You and your ex-spouse can do all kinds of things that judges cannot. You might agree to extend the term of alimony payments, thereby reducing the size of each monthly payment, in return for your spouse's agreement to trade automobiles with you." That's generally true, but if you decide to make a new agreement, make sure you talk to an attorney and ask for help in making that new agreement enforceable. Most support agreements include terms for how to modify them, and you will want to follow those. Otherwise, you might end up with a worse situation than you started with.

Make sure you  "don't sacrifice too much." Again, even though times are tough, don't just roll over, or let the other party steamroll you into a worse position. If you're having trouble finding that fine line between trusting and fighting, you should probably talk to an attorney. Finding a way to walk that line is a big part of what we do every day, to help our clients through difficult, confusing situations.

The bottom line, for anybody in a bad situation where child or spousal support is part of the mix, is that you need to be ready to come to the table and talk about your circumstances with the other person. Disputes like these are often like those "Chinese finger traps" you might have seen, where the only ways to get out are either for both sides to come together a little and reach a mutually agreeable compromise, or simply to thrash around until you've torn the whole thing to shreds.

Finally:

Whether you're the person making the payments or the person receiving the payments, you should hire a lawyer to represent your interest. Don't be afraid to bring in other professionals, such as an accountant or a certified divorce financial analyst, to assist your case.

That's always a good thing to remember. And also remember that nothing I write here is intended as legal advice for you, and it should not be taken as legal advice for you. Your situation is unique and you should speak to a local attorney if you have a child or spousal support issue. If you would like to speak to me, please visit the website for my firm. There you can contact my office and set up a consultation.

One way to feel more confident in an uncertain world, and to help yourself make better decisions, is by adding to your knowledge and trying to understand some of the complexities that affect us all. For example, if you're confused about why we're in a recession, check out this nifty little cartoon that explains it pretty well.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Thanks to Bethany Clough at the Fresno Bee News Blog for pointing this one out.

Things are tough everywhere. This story out of London, from the Associated Press, shows that family lawyers on the other side of the Atlantic are seeing the same kinds of things we're seeing in California:

London's top divorce firms are reporting a surge in business from former financial high-flyers. Desperate for a break from support payments—and with no bonus in sight—they want to re-negotiate terms with their former spouses to reflect changed circumstances.

"These husbands are simply saying, 'I cannot afford to pay this level of maintenance,'" said David Allison, a divorce specialist at London's Family Law in Partnership. "And we're seeing increasing numbers of those."

Fortunately, the financial obligations imposed by family law are often flexible enough to allow for modifications when circumstances change. Negotiating or getting a court to order a downward modification still costs time and money, but in many cases those resources are well-spent. The reduced support obligation can pay off in the long run, if the numbers add up right—and if neither party tries to drag things out with unnecessary litigation. But remember that every situation is different, so things may not work out the same way for you.

Deciding whether to hire an attorney is major financial decision for most people. Hiring an attorney for a family law case can easily cost as much as buying a new car. A few matters can be resolved for less than $5,000, but many run to the neighborhood of $10,000, and a few go much higher. So with the economy doing so poorly and almost everybody strapped for cash, it's more important than ever to take careful stock of your situation before rushing into anything.

Evaluate a relationship with an attorney the same way you would choose an investment. Ask yourself what the up-front costs will be and whether the results you hope to obtain would pay for those costs. And when you're thinking about costs and benefits, be prepared to change your expectations to fit the means available to you. Just like some people can't afford to buy luxury homes, some people can't afford high-powered litigation.

If you have a situation that you need help resolving, and you decide to schedule a consultation, then you should discuss your situation and those costs and benefits with the attorney. Like I said, every situation is different, so don't just assume that you can or can't afford to accomplish your goals. Attorneys are not just people who fight for you—they're also advisers, who can help you get a clearer sense of your position so you can make more informed decisions.

A bad economy shouldn't leave you feeling trapped. The world is not ending. In fact, there might be a silver lining: you can work within the limitations of the economy and push yourself to be better at managing your situation.

Finally, as always, nothing I write here is intended to be legal advice, and you should not take it as legal advice. If you would like a consultation with me, please visit the website for my firm. From there you can contact my office and set an appointment.