Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Grandfather’s Petition Under Family Code Section 3104 To Visit His Grandchildren Did Not Justify Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Custodial Wife Under Either Family Code Section 7605 Or As A Proceeding Subsequent To UPA Judgments Entered In A Prior Juvenile Dependency Case

Cases: Family Law

Nothing Demonstrated That The Legislature Found That Fees Should Be Awarded In Grandparent Visitation Cases. Grandparents filing petitions for visitation of grandchildren under Family Code section 3104 can sigh with relief based on the appellate court’s opinion in Timothy S. v. Sarah H., Case No. D087153 (4th Dist., Div. 1) (published). There, grandfather—who had custody

Deadlines, Family Law: Deadline To File Fee Motion For Fees Under Family Code Section 6344 Is Governed By CRC 3.1702 Deadline Rules

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

No Exception Applied To Family Matters, With The Family Law Court Not Expressly Reserving The Matter For Later Junctures. In In re Marriage of A.O. and Vologodskaya, Case No. A176388 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 28, 2026) (published), the issue on appeal was whether CRC 3.1702 deadlines applied to a prevailing party as far as

Family Law: Arora v. Arora Now Published

Cases: Family Law

Ruling In Contempt Proceedings Did Not Inhibit Family Code Section 271 Sanctions. On October 2, 2026, we posted on Arora v. Arora, Case No. D086321 (4th Dist., Div. 1 September 28, 2026), which was unpublished at the time.  We can report that, on October 22, 2026, the opinion was certified for publication—holding that a contempt

Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Failure To Prevail In Contempt Proceedings Did Not Bar Family Code § 271 Sanctions Awards To Ex-Husband

Cases: Family Law

The Statutes Serves Separate Policy Purposes, Such That They Can Be Concurrently Applied In Dissolution Proceedings. Arora v. Arora, Case No. D086321 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2026) (unpublished) involved a clash between two schemes, contempt proceedings and Family Code section 271 sanctions, with ex-wife arguing that that her failure to prevail in earlier

Family Law: After Making Findings That Husband Had Better Access To Funds And Wife Had Overlitigated The Dissolution Case, Appellate Court Affirmed Lower Court’s Decision To Have Husband Waive A Spousal Support Overcharge In Consideration Of Waiving His Lesser Section 2030 Award To Wife

Cases: Family Law

Husband’s Waiver Of A $12,750 Spousal Support Overpayment By Husband In Return For Foregoing Payment Of An Additional 2030 Award Of $4,000 To Wife Was A Reasonable Result. We liked Marriage of Mackey, Case No. B349404 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 10, 2026) (unpublished) because it seemed to do “rough justice” in a case where ex-wife

Family Law: In Case Where Both Ex-Husband And Ex-Wife Had Substantial Assets, The Lower Court Erred in Denying Family Code Section 2030 Fees To Ex-Wife Because It Did Not Make Express Findings On Relative Access To Funds Or On Relative Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

Case Remanded To Reconsider The 2030 Fee Request (Including If Fees Were Appropriate); Fees Were Properly Denied Under Family Code Section 3557 Relating To Child Support Enforcement. Marriage of Trousset and Kelley, Case No. A172398 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2026) (published), is an interesting opinion on the need to make express findings on the

Family Law: Ex-Wife Properly Denied Family Code Section 2030 Fees Because She Had Some Assets, She Chose Not To Work, And Her Counsel Drove Up The Costs In The Dissolution Action

Cases: Family Law

$60,000 Was The Denied Request. In Marriage of Patel, Case No. B351488 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished), the family law judge denied ex-wife’s request for $60,000 in needs-based fees under Family Code section 2030.  The appellate court affirmed.  Although the lower court’s reasons at the oral hearing were not a model of

Scroll to Top