Irrespective of whether one is in a dissolution action or a paternity action, there is no more contested subject in Family Court than child custody. With a myriad of fact patterns available to the courts in a plethora of cases, there is a wide range of potential orders. The long- standing policy of the state is that both parents should have frequent and regular contact with their children. In the absence of an out of Court agreement, it is important to know that the court will make the final decision about your child custody case but will usually approve any parent agreements regarding child custody. When looking at child custody in California, it is important to understand the basics, as discussed below.
Types of Child Custody
There are two kinds of child custody:
-School or child care
-Religious activities or institutions
-Psychiatric, psychological, or other mental health counseling or therapy needs
-Doctor, dentist, orthodontist, or other health professional (except in emergency
-Sports, summer camp, vacation, or extracurricular activities
-Residence (where the children will live)
2. Physical Custody: Who your children live with.
Physical custody can be:
Joint: Children live with both parents.
Sole/Primary:Children live with one parent most of the time and have visitation with the other parent.
California courts will always base their decisions regarding child custody on what is in the best interest of the child. Sometimes, a court will grant parents joint legal custody , but not joint physical custody. This means that both parents will share in the responsibility of making decisions in their children’s lives, but the children will reside with only one of the parents most of the time. The parent who has no physical custody will usually have visitation rights with their children.
The law says that the courts must give custody according to what is in the “best interest of the child.”
The court will consider:
The age of the child,
The health of the child,
The emotional ties between the parents and the child,
The ability of the parents to care for the child,
Any history of family violence or substance abuse, and
The child’s ties to school, home, and his or her community.
Are you looking for a experienced family law attorney to represent you in your child custody case? Contact usSunnen Law today at 619-255-9551 and speak with our knowledgeable and compassionate, but also tough when necessary Attorney Christopher Sunnen who will provide you with exceptional legal representation. Our goal is to always empower clients to make informed decisions about their future. We represent clients throughout San Diego County, including Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Escondido, Del Mar, La Jolla, Chula Vista, and El Cajon.
Tag: Child Custody
One of the most common questions in Family Law is whether a custody order is “permanent”. While court orders have a number of designations from “minute”, “emergency”, “temporary”, and “final”, such terms have more to do with legal questions than duration. As a matter of fact, while orders may be “temporary”, if the parties never return to court to modify them, they have a degree of permanence that may never have been intended. What is clear, however, is that as time passes, certain provisions of custody orders that at first worked well, or seemed appropriate may no longer be necessary. Without going through an exhaustive list of examples, life happens fast, and can cause changes to children’s activities, parent’s relationships, parent’s jobs, and everything else.
While custody orders can always be modified by the parties themselves without court involvement, in high conflict cases, or just regular cases, sometimes an out of court agreement cannot be reached, which means the parties must return to Court. In such situations, the Family Court custody process starts anew, with one party having to file a Request for Order (Motion), and the parties having to return to Family Court Services (FCS). It is important to note that, unless extenuating circumstances exist, the Court system is loath to send parties to FCS more than once during a calendar year. It is also important to note that custody modification motions can and do take a great deal of time to proceed through the Court system, and during that time, unless other circumstances exist that usually revolve around the safety of the minor or minors at issue, the prior orders remain in effect.
Other than reaching an out of court agreement as to custody changes, the fastest way to obtain a modification of custody orders is to reach an agreement at FCS. The main point of FCS is, if possible, to bridge the gap between the parties, and to allow a neutral third-party mediator to ascertain what is occurring with the minor or minors. If an agreement cannot be reached, this mediator will provide both the parties and the Court with their recommendations in a report.
With respect to filing motions, the main legal reasons for changing custody in California are based on the “change in circumstances” test, and whether such changes are in the “best interests” of the minor or minors. Both tests are highly fact specific and turn on the specific fact patterns of each case but are designed to prevent parties from running to Court to seek modifications for every perceived issue. When presenting such issues to the Court, one needs to provide a clear and concise list of reasons that is based on independent and corroborated evidence. While there are other ways to change custody in Family Court, such other situations usually involve restraining orders, criminal conduct, or other child endangerment issues, that while separate, also at some point consider the “best interests” of the minor or minors.
Given the nature of the relief requested, child custody modification motions are serious business, and a serious matter that one needs to be prepared for to obtain the relief that they want. There also can be many forms, depending on what type of relief one is seeking for themselves, and potentially their children. If you have questions about either filing or defending a modification request, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any child custody questions you may have to protect your rights and those of your children.
Categories: Child Custody | Tags: child custody, family law
In addition to Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (“CHRO”) and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (“DVRO”), since 2016 California has a third type of protective order, the Gun Violence Retraining Order (“GVRO”). While Civil Harassment Restraining Orders are governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders are governed by the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Gun Violence Restraining Orders are governed by Section 18150 of the Penal Code. Unlike the first two types of restraining orders, which require specific conditions as to parties staying away from residences, places of employment and other locations, the GVRO only addresses a party’s right to own or possess firearms or ammunition.
In addition to being a limited type of restraining order, there is a limited class of people who can apply for a GVRO. The class of people who can apply for a GVRO are immediate family members, who could be spouses, parents, children, stepchildren, in-laws, or a former member of the household who had resided at the location for the last six months. There is an exception to this requirement, however, that if a party does not have the necessary relationship with the at-risk party, they can notify law enforcement, who can then in turn potentially apply. As of 2019, the City Attorney of San Diego had successfully obtained over one hundred Gun Violence Restraining Orders, one of the highest levels in the state of California and removed over two hundred and sixty nine guns from such individuals.
Like the other types of restraining orders, an applicant for a GVRO must prove that the restrained party poses a significant risk, either to themselves, or third parties. While the law was enacted to remove firearms from potentially unstable individuals, it is worth noting that this type of remedy also exists with other restraining orders. For example, a party that is subjected to domestic violence – be it physical, verbal, or other, and applies for a DVRO through the Court can ensure that the restrained party relinquishes whatever firearms they have access to through the DVRO process.
As always when discussing domestic violence or potential gun violence, it is important to note that if you are being abused by a partner of any sort, you should stop reading this blog and contact the appropriate authorities. Similarly, if you feel that a party who has access to or has firearms is a threat to their person or others, one should also contact the appropriate authorities. Given the nature of the relief requested, Gun Violence Restraining Orders are serious business, and a serious matter that one needs to be prepared for to obtain the relief that they want. If you have questions about them or other restraining orders, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any GVRO questions you may have to protect your personal safety.
One of the most serious issues that faces people that are dating, engaged, or married is that of domestic violence. Pursuant to studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control, one in four women (25%) and one in seven men (14%) have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime; and even more disturbing, two-thirds (66%) of female victims of stalking were stalked by a current or former intimate partner. Bringing this closer to home – San Diego County - in 2017, there were 17,306 domestic violence incidents reported to law enforcement in which was a four percent increase from the prior year. While the statistics are not yet available for 2018 it is likely that such numbers will be at the same level or a slight increase. As always when discussing domestic violence, it is important to note that if you are being abused by a partner of any sort, you should stop reading this blog and contact the appropriate authorities.
With respect to remedies for domestic violence, the first and most important remedy is as listed above to contact the authorities, file a police report, and wait for the District Attorney to take action under the appropriate provisions of the penal code. The second – or equally important remedy is to obtain a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”) from the Family Court. DVRO’s are governed by the Domestic Violence Protection Act, which defines abuse as: 1) intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; 2) sexual assault.; 3) placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another; and 4) engaging in any behavior that has been or could be illegal such as molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, battering, harassing, destroying personal property, contacting the other by mail, telephone, or otherwise, disturbing the peace of the other party.
In addition to the abuse component, one must prove that an intimate or familial relationship exists between the parties, or else the relief requested is more appropriately a Civil Harassment Restraining Order (“CHRO”). It is always worth noting that the party requesting the restraining order bears the burden of proof, meaning that they must prove that the abuse occurred. Under the DVPA, restraining orders can be granted on a permanent basis for a term between a number of months and five years. This order can later be renewed, depending on whether there has been additional or continuing conduct after the initial order has been granted.
Like many things in the realm of Family Law, a number of rumors continue to exist about domestic violence restraining orders. The first and most prevalent rumor is that a restraining order will only be granted if there is physical violence between the parties. While the element of physical violence is one that likely ensures that a protective order will be granted, it does not need to occur for an order to be granted. As discussed above, a party need only demonstrate that they have been harassed, or that their peace has been disturbed by a number of means, including that of verbal or online abuse. The second and most prevalent rumor is that restraining orders are not granted for men against women, or in same sex relationships. In 2019, a restraining order may be granted to protect any party irrespective of race, gender, age, or any other factor as long as they meet the legal requirements under the law.
Given the nature of the relief requested, Domestic Violence Restraining Orders are serious business, and a serious matter that one needs to be prepared for to obtain the relief that they want. There also can be many forms, depending on what type of relief one is seeking for themselves, and potentially their children. If you have questions about Domestic Violence Restraining Orders, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any DVRO questions you may have to protect your personal safety.
One of the practical issues that occurs incident to dissolution is “information leakage”. Information leakage occurs when the other side - either soon to be ex-husband or wife - has texts, e-mails, voicemails, social media posts, or other information that they should not have access to. Generally in such cases, clients want to know how the other party received such information, and are upset that the other side has such information. While it should not be shocking, the source of such information is usually shared passwords.
In a recent Pew study, it was found that sixty-seven percent (67% ) of couples share at least one online account password and twenty-seven percent (27%) have shared their passwords. While password sharing is common, and in theory, a good practice for healthy, happy relationships, given that half of all marriages end in dissolution, there are plenty of examples of how sharing passwords in an unhappy relationship can be a bad idea.
If one is absolutely certain that they are filing for dissolution, or is already in a dissolution or paternity action, it is imperative that one change their voicemail, e-mail, and social media passwords for their own accounts. While this may be somewhat frustrating for the other party based on past conduct, the important thing to remember is that those passwords were shared in the past - and based on present actions of separating, it is no longer practical to share such items. As social media screenshots are frequently featured as evidence in Family Law actions, it makes no sense to volunteer items to the other side. Similarly, if you are the party that pays for streaming services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, it is prudent to change such passwords as well to prevent any type of abuse of the service.
Changing passwords for personal items is important, and likely needed, but is also important to remember that one cannot take further measures that would presumably violate the automatic restraining orders (ATROS) that goes into effect on the filing of a dissolution. It is also important to note that one cannot “freeze out” the opposing side from bank account or credit account information, as each spouse - even in a divorce, owes the other side a fiduciary duty.
Similarly, with respect to passwords, you should secure your own gadgets and ensure your security questions have been updated to questions that another party would not know. Ensure all social media privacy settings are up to date and make sure you do not post anything inflammatory or incriminating. One should also make sure that you are not surreptitiously being tracked by third party applications, such as Apple’s Find My Friends. If you have questions about these pitfalls or other traps, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any questions you may have to safeguard your reputation in Court.
While the rumor that adultery somehow affects a divorce in California is the first and most popular myth regarding dissolution, the idea that common-law marriage exists in the state is a close second. In the event you have no idea what common-law marriage is, “common-law marriage” is the theory that if one co-habitates (lives) with another party long enough in a romantic relationship, they become legally married. While on paper, there may appear to be advantages to this, the advantages are confined to that – paper and dreams.
In fact, there is no common-law marriage in California, something that was made clear by the decision rendered in Maglica v. Maglica(1998) 66 CA4th 442, 447. In this case, the Court found that simply living together as alleged “husband” and “wife” cannot give rise to a “marriage” or other legal-like union under California law. While this may sound like a decision that clarifies a question that no one asked, in practical terms on a day-to-day basis, this means that people who live together, but are not married, and are not registered domestic partners have no interest in the other party’s personal property (bank accounts, cars, retirement accounts) or real property (houses) no matter how long they have been together.
This means that if you are in a long-term relationship with another person, and do not get married, under California law, you can expect to receive nothing. In the event this sounds horrible, like many things, the law provides an out. In this case, the out is what is known as a “Marvin action”based on the seminal case in this area – Marvin v. Marvin(1976) 134 CR 815. The decision in Marvin held that parties who were not married – but co-habitated for years in a common law marriage type of situation could enforce implied or express contracts that had been articulated between the parties over the years. The Court in Marvin also found that the judicial system could look to a variety of other remedies to protect the parties lawful expectations in the absence of marriage.
It is also worth noting for those that have been in a long term relationship without marriage, but have children, child support arises on termination of the relationship. See Family Code Section 3900. Finally, it is also worth noting for those that are in a long term non-marriage relationship that has ended, and are considering their rights, Marvinclaims must be brought in a short period of time. If you have questions about your rights as an unmarried party exiting a long term relationship, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any questions you may have to safeguard your financial well-being.
Generally, no one wakes up and wants to obtain a restraining order against another party as it requires one to expend the time and energy to go to Court. Having said that, harassment, either in person or online, violence, or threats of violence are serious issues. As anyone will tell you, if you have an imminent fear of violence, or are experiencing violence at this moment in time, you should stop reading this post, and contact the appropriate authorities. If you have contacted the authorities, you should also consider your civil remedies in Superior Court. While restraining orders against parties one knows are governed by the Family Code, restraining orders against strangers are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and are called Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (“CHRO”).
The distinction here is simple: if you are related to a party, or if they are your wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, former husband, former wife, former boyfriend, or former girlfriend, the law classifies such problems as potential domestic violence, and the remedy is a domestic violence restraining order. However, if the relationship is that of a non-romantic roommate, co-worker, neighbor, random stranger, or anyone that does not fall into the above domestic violence category above, the remedy is a Civil Harassment Restraining Order.
Civil Harassment Restraining Orders are governed by Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under this section, individuals are entitled to a CHRO if they meet any of the following conditions: a) Are a victim of a continual pattern of conduct from another party – meaning, that they have been stalked or harassed in person or online; b) Believe that there is a credible threat of violence – meaning that a reasonable person would have fear for their safety and the safety of their family; and c) That they have been harassed, subjected to violence, threats of violence, or a course of conduct that serves no legitimate purpose – meaning that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.
As one can see, the definition of harassment under the law is intentionally broad. This law covers: online stalking; in person stalking; online harassment; in person harassment; harassment by mail, phone, e-mail, or text; assault by the other party; threatened assault by the other party; and various other acts. In practical terms, the law covers a neighbor, who, for whatever reason, decides to either stalk, harass, or threaten violence against one’s person or property. The law covers a co-worker, who, for whatever reason, decides to harass a person online. The law covers a member of a group, who, for whatever reason, decides to harass a person via the phone, text, or e-mail. Finally, the law covers the repeated acts of random strangers who choose to do any of these things or more.
The point of a CHRO is first of all, mental and physical protection. If one obtains a temporary CHRO, or a permanent CHRO, the other party cannot threaten or harass the applicant; cannot go near the applicant’s place of business; home; school; or other areas; and the recipient of a CHRO cannot own or possess a firearm or ammunition. In order to obtain a CHRO, a party must complete Court-approved paperwork, and also produce what evidence that supports their claims. On the day of filing, the moving party will learn whether their request has been granted in whole, in part, or not at all pending a hearing date. On that hearing date, the moving party must appear, and may have to testify to ensure that they receive the relief requested. Once the hearing is completed, the Court may elect to enter a permanent order based on the evidence received for a period of time.
Like Domestic Violence Restraining Orders, Civil Harassment Restraining Orders are serious business, and a serious matter that one needs to be prepared for to obtain the relief that they want. If you have questions about Civil Harassment Restraining Orders, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end, and who will advocate for you to get the protection you need. Contact our office today with any CHRO questions you may have to protect your personal safety.
When the Bankruptcy Code was amended in 2005 to become the “Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act” (BAPCPA), there was a pre-change increase of Chapter 7 filings because of concern over a new provision in the law known as the “Means Test”. Once the law was amended, the means test was and is located on the Form B 122(A), and became part of the petition that must be filed to commence a case. While there was a great deal of speculation on what the means test would entail leading up to passage of the law, what it is now is fairly cut and dry.
In particular, the means test is a six month review of the Debtor – or Debtors – income. All income sources are considered, and weighed against the “National Standard Tables” – tables that are present for every county in the United States by the Internal Revenue Service that represent what the government perceives as an the amount required for various categories. These tables, promulgated for questions involving tax repayment through the Offer in Compromise process, lay out numbers for housing allowances, food, utilities, and various other necessities, such as automobile expenses. Variation exists in the tables based on household size, locality, and on a year by year basis. To place it in practical perspective, the National Standards are not actual expenses of the Debtor or Debtors, but expense amounts the government assumes an average individual in the subject county will have. Further, while expenses may be similar along county lines such as from San Diego County to Orange County, different National Standard numbers may exist.
If a potential Debtor has income that is in excess of the National Standard numbers for the last six months, additional provisions of the form arise, in terms of deductions, and calculations. This is where the means test’s teeth arise, in that under Section 707 of BAPCPA, those individuals who are deemed to be abusive filers can have their case converted to a Chapter 13 – debt repayment plan or worse yet, dismissed in its entirety, which can carry other penalties. These fears lead to the rush of filings in 2005; but as time has gone on, it is clear that this provision for many people is not even applicable. For example, the law specifically exempts disabled veterans from being subject to the test at all.
Moving on from this limited class, the means test is circumscribed by an even larger area of the law – the distinction between “consumer debt” and “non-consumer debt”. The law states that all “consumer debtors” must complete the means test. But, this means that if one’s debt is “non-consumer” debt, one doesn’t have to complete this portion of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. While the law does not lay out all of the distinctions on consumer versus non-consumer debt, various cases have since filled in the gaps. At this point, consumer debt is what it sounds like – credit cards used for personal purchases, automobile loans for personal cars, mortgages on personal residences, along with other items.
In contrast, non-consumer debt are things that are not for personal expenses. For example, a person that is self employed, but has accrued substantial debt related to the business is a non consumer debtor. Going further, if a party has extensive medical bills, this debt is considered non-consumer debt. Finally, if a person has extensive – and dischargeable tax debts – these debts are considered non-consumer as well. Under the law in the Ninth Circuit, where California is, as long as these non-consumer debts are slightly more than the consumer debt, meaning over fifty percent, the means test does not apply, and therefore does not need to be completed.
Even though it may be a relief to not have to fill out the means test portion of the petition, and comply with that part of the law, there are other pitfalls in Chapter 7 cases. If you have questions about Chapter 7 relief, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end. Contact our office today with any Chapter 7 questions you may have.
If you have a child, or children in California, and you are involved in either a paternity or dissolution action, one of the more common items litigated is child custody and visitation. Like anything, child custody and visitation does not have to be litigated, but in the absence of an agreement, such matters usually are discussed before the Court. When child custody and visitation are being litigated, the companion motion that is usually filed either separately or at the same time is a motion for child support.
The reason that this occurs is that child custody and child support are linked, meaning that the amount of support a party pays is directly attributable to the amount of time they spend with the child or children; and their amount of monthly income. Unlike determinations of child custody and visitation, which must be adjudicated before the Family Court, child support can be litigated in either the Family Court, or in the Department of Child Support Services (“DCSS”). Under California law, DCSS is the agency that is responsible for among other things, establishing and maintaining support orders, and collecting and processing child support payments.
Determining what forum to litigate in for child support can at times be a complex question. A party may have addressed many matters involving their case with their Family Court Judge assigned to their case and may be leery of entering a new department with a new judicial officer who does not have the background and familiarity with their case. However, in many cases, either because a party will not pay, cannot pay, or is paying irregularly on a child support order, a party will want to engage the assistance of DCSS in enforcing the order. Similarly, in some cases, both parties elect to have the child support monitored, collected, and enforced by DCSS in order that a concrete record of payments exists for both sides.
With regard to DCSS, it is also relevant to note that as a state agency, they have the power to take a number of actions with regard to non-paying parties who owe child support, including, but not limited to wage assignment, and suspension of driver’s licenses. While DCSS does an excellent job enforcing Court orders and entering child support orders, a party who is in Family Court, but then elects to have DCSS handle this aspect of their case may find that the decision has other consequences. For example, by electing to proceed in a second forum, additional costs will be imposed on both sides by having to litigate in a new Court, and at times, at additional delays may occur.
A common problem in this respect is that a party who either has temporary custody orders, or is seeking modification of such orders may see the DCSS action continued until final custody orders are entered either in the action, or on the motion before the Family Court. While child support is retroactive to the date of the filing of the motion at DCSS, there can be delays in collecting the support while the matter is litigated in both forums. Correspondingly, a party who has the option to choose between whether the support question is litigated in Family Court, or DCSS should consider all of the relevant facts in their case before making a decision on which forum they want to proceed in. If you have questions about child support, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end. Contact our office today with any child support questions you may have.
One of the more persistent rumors that occurs even into 2019 is that cheating, or if we are being formal, adultery has an effect on how a dissolution (divorce) proceeds. While adultery may be morally wrong depending on one’s ethical views, to quote Ella Fitzgerald, “…Birds do it, bees do it, Even educated fleas do it…”. Further, with the divorce rate in California and the United States hanging around fifty percent, adultery is quite common. Moral and ethical questions aside, adultery does not lead to criminal cases – in California there is no criminal statue currently that makes cheating a crime and its participants criminals. And, again, if we are being honest, adultery for the most part has no effect on how dissolutions occur or proceed.
The reason for this is that under the law in California, dissolution is a “no fault” proceeding. No fault in this context is clear and simple – neither side has to prove that the other side did anything wrong to obtain a divorce. Instead, what the law in California states is that in order to obtain a dissolution, “irreconcilable differences” must exist. Unlike many things under the law, irreconcilable differences can mean many things. It could mean that one, or both parties cheated; it could mean that the parties are not talking; it could mean that the parties simply don’t wish to be together; it could mean just about anything. All irreconcilable differences really means in a dissolution proceeding is that at least one of the two parties does not wish to be legally married.
In this context, at some point either by legal pleading – or in person – the individual (or both parties) must attest (state) to the Court that they have no desire to remain legally married to the other. If this occurs in person, any Family Law Judge will ask both parties if such differences exist, and whether any amount of counseling or reconciliation could change one or both of the parties’ minds. If the parties state that the differences cannot be overcome, a dissolution must occur. To this end, it’s also worth noting that if one party wants a dissolution, and the other does not, there is no legal way to stop a proceeding, and if a party attempts to drag out a dissolution for irresponsible reasons, sanctions and fees can be awarded along with the eventual divorce.
In this context, legally, it doesn’t matter if a party cheated, because that falls into the category of irreconcilable differences. This is not to say that new relationships do not affect a divorce in ways such as child custody and property division depending on the facts, but in terms of finding fault or proving who did something wrong, this conduct is immaterial. As a practical point as well, most Family Law judges will listen patiently to the first reference of adultery with respect to a dissolution, before calmly telling a litigant the above standards under the law. However, while California is a “no fault” state, as a further practical point, many people who go through a dissolution with or without adultery regularly seek counseling for issues that arise during the dissolution to help them deal with the non-legal issues that arise.
If you’re considering a dissolution, don’t just trust what advice you receive from family and friends, or the internet, but contact an attorney who can guide you between what is real – and what is a dead end. Contact our office today to let us know what the facts are in your case, and what questions you may have.
Christopher Sunnen, Esq. is a San Diego, CA based attorney specializing in family law and bankruptcy law.