1)     Why I should have custody of our child or children.

2)     What I can do for the child(ren) that the other side is unable or unwilling to do?

3)     My proposal for time share and visitation and why.

4)     My proposal for problem solving and reducing conflict.

 You can just copy and paste these tables into your word processor and modify them. The good point about these tables is it is an automatic checklist of major points. Anything that does not apply to your case you can just delete the row and it will automatically renumber itself. These cells will also automatically expand with more data typed in.

5)     My plan for supervision and care for the child(ren) when I am not there.

6)     The other parent has proposed a time share that I do not agree with and the reason why. 

7)     My plan for specific arrangements for holidays and special days.

8)     Comparing our parenting skills. Strengths and weakness of both of us.

 If you know anyone with family law questions please mention this site to them. Let them know the first consultation is free. If your case is in the Inland Empire of Southern California please call for a free consultation at 951-247-1977. Thank you.  www.BlaisAtty.com

9)     Lifestyle of myself and other parent. Strengths and weaknesses in reference to the child(ren).

10) Schedule I will keep with the child(ren) and compare to other parents probable schedule.

11) Types of things I do with the child(ren) compared to the other parent.

12) School activities each of us participates in.

13) Specific complaints I have about the other parent on parenting skills.

14) The things the other parent will use against me. What are the basis for the claims.

15) Special needs of our child(ren) and how I will meet them.

16) Attach any school records in reference to negative behavior of other parent or that show my good parenting skills.

17) Activates and interests I currently share with the child(ren)

18) FC 3024 notice of contemplated move.

19) FC 3025 access to records and information on kids like school and medical records.

20) FC 3040 The court should consider which parent will let the other have visitation and do a parenting plan.

21) FC 3041 Necessary findings before grant custody to non-parents.

22) FC 3042 The wishes of the child should be considered in ordering custody.

23) FC 3044 Presumption against joint custody when family violence in last five years.

24) FC 3046 short absence of parent or absent because of violence.

25) FC 3080 Presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of the child where the parents have agreed to joint custody.

26) FC 3181 Separate mediation where domestic violence.

27) FC 3200 and following, request supervised visitation.

28) FC 3041 finding necessary to grant custody to non parents.

Lee v. Yang (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th  481. This not family law case. Man and woman move in and plan to get married. They have joint account. Breakup occurs and she takes the money from the account. Does she have to reimburse him? No. page 493. There was no restriction on how much each could take from the account and no legal obligation to return them. She had a unrestricted to withdraw and apply the funds to her own benefit, ownership of the funds passed to her by way of gift, within the meaning described above.

CRC 5.128 on appeals interlocutory.

IRMO Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th  1517filed 3-3-05. Sanctions order can be appealed even if appeal is from an unsigned minute order that fails to direct preparation of a written order and is not a dismissal of the action under CCP 581d. Also the order is appealable under CCP 904.1(a)(2)

IRMO Lafkas (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1429  bifurcated trial – when appeal from bifurcated trial need certificate of probable cause from the trial court. Also required by FC 2025 also see CRC 5.180(b), et al. They can still appeal at the end of the case on an appeal on the case.

If one side no file an appeals brief not treat as default. Appeals court will examine the record, appellant's brief and any oral argument by appellant to see if it supports any claims of error made by appellant. See CRC 17(a)(2) In re Bryce (1995) 12 Cal. 4th 226, 232-233

IRMO Lafkas (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1429  filed 8-6-07 . Husband's appeal is dismissed in absence of certificate of probably cause and court order allowing appeal on bifurcated issue. Bifurcate on issues on the business. Court made order. Husband appeals. They should have gotten certificate of probably cause. Special rules when appeal bifurcated issue. Can still appeal at the end when all issues decided.

IRMO Feldman  filed 7-20-07  Trial court not required to issue statement of decision. CCP 632 not apply to OSC and motion hearings. Court did issue "Findings and Order After Hearing" that should be adequate for an appeal. Good cites on statement of decision. At end of case.

IRMO Knabe and Brister, filed 9-6-07 (2007) Stipulation agreeing to transfer exclusive jurisdiction over Child Support is valid and enforceable even if signed by attorneys, and not parties themselves. Good on powers of attorneys to bind clients. If involved substantial rights it must be signed by parties themselves. This was a procedural matter that attorneys can stipulate to. It is a major procedural matter but can still litigate the case in California . Did not settle the case or end the case which would be a substantial right. Also he went to court in California earlier and did not contest the stipulation. 

Soukup v. Stock (2004) 118 Cal.App.4^th 1490. Although defendant in pro per could not recover attorney fees for own time, if assisted by another attorney, P could be liable for those fees.

IRMO Hobdy  (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th  360 filed 10-21-04 Husband may be compelled to pay wife's attorney fees even though they were initially denied. She not get fees at motion OSC. However one asked for a motion for reconsideration and attorney fees were given then. That is OK.

IRMO Cueva (1978) 86 Cal.App.3rd 290. Family law case on what court should look for in awarding attorney fees. Not just on code sections. Temp on this 1aff.

IRMO Erickson and Lerner filed 7-21-06. Court has jurisdiction to order husband to pay attorney fees directly to law firm which previously represented former wife. Read, Meadow and Borson cases discussed. Attorneys file for attorney fees from spouse before Substitution of Attorneys filed against them. This is OK even if the court makes order after the Substitution of Attorneys is filed. Key fact is that the request for attorney fees was made with the former clients approval. If approval given then OK. Only if former client not want attorney to get fees from other side does this prevent getting fees.

IRMO Leonard and Jude Green (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1312  filed 10-13-06 Entry of marital dissolution judgment ordering payment of attorney fees gave attorneys independent statutory right to enforce judgment under FC 272.  Although an attorney's right to fees in a dissolution action is "derivative" of the client right. Once judgment is entered the attorney can enforce the fee award directly. Can get interest also.

IRMO Gioia (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th  272. Bankruptcy case. Husband  go bankrupt and bankruptcy court sign deed to wife. The bankruptcy court deed was not effective. It was just to announce that the bankrupt court had no claim. It was a formality. The deed has no effect. Look to the family law court and marriage as to title to the realty.

IRMO Williams (1984) 157 Cal.App.3rd 1215 – order for wife to pay husband money as part of property settlement. She goes bankrupt on this. Can she do so? Yes, she can do this. Family law court can't make a new property settlement agreement taking this into consideration. Court can't modify Spousal Support or income from retirement to adjust for this.

Rousey v. Jacoway (2005) --- US ----. Debtors can exempt assets in their IRA from the bankruptcy estate per 11 USC section 522(d)(10)(E)

Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Attisha   Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Attisha (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 357 (2005) --- Cal.App.4th  ----. Trial court abused its discretion by striking defendants expert testimony on goodwill valuation issue which should have gone to jury.

IRMO Brinkman (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1281, filed September 2003 – Settlement conference referee recommend Child Support reduce to 150 per month. They accept the 150 but never put into an order signed by judge. Just recommendation. Mom wants arrearages from the old amount. She can seek. This is not estoppel by conduct. Just because she took less not mean she OK with it. Settlement offer was just a recommendation.

IRMO Scheuerman and Hauk (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th  1140  filed 3-15-04. Arizona Child Support order has expired Statute of Limitations ended two years ago in Arizona . Take to California where no Statute of Limitations on Child Support. It is not valid in Cal because is void in Arizona . Should have taken to Cal before Arizona Statute of Limitations ended. Could then have used Cal Statute of Limitations.

IRMO Leonard (2004) filed 6-15-04  (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th  546 119 Cal.App.4th  546 Court had good cause to deny father's request to have support reduction apply retroactively. Dad turn unemployed and file motion. Court does not apply the reduction retroactively to file date. Rare situation. Dad had available resources. Balance the needs of the parties with the kids.

IRMO DaSilva, filed 6-25-04. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th  1030. Court must reconsider parents' respective period of primary physical responsibility in Child Support case. In figuring custody time for DissoMaster must use the primary physical responsibility. When child at school. Who takes child to and back, who respond to medical or other emergencies, who pays school expenses, who participates in school activities like PTA and others.

IRMO Hubner #2 (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th  1082  filed 11-17-04 Statutory interest on unpaid Child Support payment accrues from due dates, even though trial court erroneously suspended payments temporarily. Should dad have to pay Child Support when child is foreign exchange student? Yes. They still would have been due. Trial court in error suspended it. Appeals court says he still has to pay and the interest also.

IRMO Trainotti (1989) 212 Cal.App.3rd 1072. father to pay Child Support of $450 per month. Mom had custody. He took child into his home and raised and provided for. Did not pay mom. Dad more than satisfied his obligation for Child Support and should not have to pay Child Support for those times he had daughter there.

Jackson (1975) 51 Cal.App.3rd 363. Dad ordered to pay Child Support. Instead he and wife agree that he have daughter. The old Child Support never changed. However he had daughter stay with him. His expenses greatly exceed the ordered Child Support. His Child Support obligations was discharged on the basis of equitable considerations.

IRMO Heiner and Chandler (2006) 136 Cal.App.4^th 1514  filed 2-27-06. Entirety of unallocated lump sum personal injury settlement is not income for purposes of calculating Child Support. Child Support as per FC 4058 not include lump sums. Can figure interest as income possibly. Fact that IRS not include it as taxable income is not controlling. Irony is a structured settlement with monthly income would be income for Child Support. NOTE it not income if an annuity as per Rothrock case of 2008. Portion of settlement can be considered as income the interest on it. Not all have to be invested in income producing items. Up to the judge.

IRMO Pearlstein (2006) 137 Cal.App.4^th 1361    filed 3-28-06 Market value of unsold share of stock received by business owner from sale of business generally is not income for Child Support purposes. While stock options can be considered income because it is for past or future services to the company. However here the business was sold and he received new stock. This new stock was not for past or future work for the firm. Court of appeal holds that this new stock for transfer of business is not for income purposes, unless it was cashed in for income a court could rule (to pay off debts – questionable reasoning here). ---- Also very high income court cannot order some the Child Support be put into a trust for the kids unless both parties agree.  – good discussion on difference between sale of stock and stock options for Child Support purposes. – to avoid paying income on Child Support just reinvest the stock in income producing assets. Cheertin is different.

McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4^th 379. Man and woman not married but have baby. Mom says it is his baby. He believes her and pays Child Support for the child. Later he learns he is not the father. He sues mom for reimbursement. He lost as against public policy. He should have had a paternity test earlier.  

IRMO Asfaw and Woldberhan, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1407 , filed 2-27-07 Depreciation of rental properties may not be deducted for purposes of calculating Child Support under FC 4058 and 4059. Depreciation cannot be used as a deduction on support.

Kristine M. v. David P. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 783. Dad is father and paternity established. He wants to terminate parental rights when there is not an adoption pending. Court says no. When adoption is not contemplated the parents cannot stipulate away their duties and obligations. Mom OK with this but court says no. He would not have to pay Child Support and court not want that. Other rights child might lose like Social Security, inheritance, health insurance, etc.

IRMO Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747 In child support case, court abused its discretion by including rental value as income based on father's mortgage free housing. This is error. Rental value of free housing usually only when part of payment in a job. – on the housing here use FC 4057 on hardship or deviation from Child Support. FAM §4057. Amount Established by Formula Presumed Correct

                        (B) Cases in which both parents have substantially equal time-sharing of the children and one parent has a much lower or higher percentage of income used for housing than the other parent.

Court should not impute the rental value of the house as income unless is job related. However can do so under FC 4057. – keep in mind that party with kids not have imputed income from new house that new spouse owns, but yes reduced living expenses

LA v James (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 253 filed 6-19-07.  Erroneously declared father is not entitled to reimbursement for Child Support payments made on child later shown to not be his own. Default against appellant dad. FC 7648.4 has no reimbursement for arrearages when default entered. He should have answered the complaint in the first place. If let default enter and later fight it can't get reimburse for past Child Support paid.

IRMO Tavares (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 620, county collect arrears. Dad argues that should be modified for time the mother concealed the child. Denied. Even if the concealment was true it did benefit the child because the overpaid money would still benefit the child during his minority.

IRMO Williams (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1221 both parties rich. Issue is if the equity in dad house should have interest imputed for income. Court says no. Can't use the equity in his house absent a FC 4057(b) special circumstances showing. Distinguishes de Guigne case in that was on 40 acres and could sell the land and still have the home.

Brothers v. Kern County filed 7-17-07 convicted murderer cannot avoid Child Support obligations because he desires to use unearned liquidated assets to pay defense attorney of his choice. Father convicted of crime and wants to appeal. Pay appeal attorney over $100k. attorney kept some and put balance in his trust account. Father says he should have defense attorney. Court agrees but there is prior money owed to the family for arrears. However he does not have to choose the most expensive attorney. Money in trust account belongs to client. The previous money owed can be used as a lien. Prior lien has control. New Child Support is based on interest on the money left after attorney take some.

IRMO Sabine and Toshio M. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1429  filed 7-31-07. Agreement in which husband only pays portion of overdue payments does not release him from remaining arrearages or waive future support. H owes 300k back Child Support and Spousal Support. He offers wife to pay 100k and not owe back for future support. She accepts. Is this valid? Court says no. On past arrearages it is void. Accord and satisfaction only when a disputed amount owed. This was financial extortion. He clearly owed 300k. see FC 3651(c)(1). There was no bona fide dispute concerning the debt. As to future amounts will owe it is void because he refused to pay in the time frame in their contract. Court should just have gone off on can't waive Child Support.

Couple disso in Idaho . They do MSA  for Idaho law to be used. Both move out. Dad to Cal. Oregon Good discussion of UIFSA. The MSA  clause to use Idaho law does not control. Dad argued that Oregon cost of living is less and the cost of living should be used there. No evidence on this. Court implied that if there was evidence then would use less than guideline Child Support. IRMO  Crosby and Grooms (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th  201, 212, filed 2-26-04

IRMO Wittgrove (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 filed 5-13-04 Millionaire surgeon can be ordered to pay $43k per month in Spousal Support and Child Support. He not want to pay so much. However with the Child Support he not meet his burden of rebutting the presumptively correct guideline amount. No evidence not to apply the guideline formula. – in Spousal Support the court not obligated to use the guideline. Still no abuse of discretion. It was to maintain the status quo which is the benchmark for temporary Spousal Support.

IRMO Tydlaska filed 12-18-03. (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 572 Spouse who did not file current Income and Expense Declaration was denied request to modify support. He filed one with his motion but was continued over 60 days in the future. San Diego local rule here than can't be over 60 days old. Issue about what his real income was also.

IRMO McClellan (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th  247 filed 5-25-05 – FC 155 was a clarification of the law and not changes. CCP 685.030 discussed. The only installment judgment is the original order on support. Later modifications do not change the amount owed in the past as arrearages. CCP 685.010

Elsenheimer v. Orange County Elsenheimer v. Elsenheimer (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1532  , filed 12-17-04. In calculating Child Support, custodial parent's gross income does not include Supplemental Security Income Benefits. SSI should not be included as income. It is a form of welfare like payments. FC 4058(c) falls into this exception. SSI is like as public assistance program based on need and not past income.

IRMO Burkle III (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712 NOT SURE ON CITE AND OTHER CASE.  filed 10-30-06 Wife's separate civil lawsuit, filed while marital dissolution proceeding was pending, was properly dismissed. Wife filed civil action in reference to the dissolution property. It was dismissed. Was sole jurisdiction of family law court. – not need Income and Expense Declaration when attorney fees ordered as a sanction.

Monterroso v. Moran (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 732 filed 1-11-06.  Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it failed to make detailed findings before entering mutual restraining order between husband and wife. Mutual restraining orders in CLETS the court must make detailed findings. Even if parties stipulate to mutual restraining orders the court must still make detailed findings that both are aggressors, etc.

IRMO Klug 2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1389 filed 7-7-05. Lawsuit proceeds awarded to wife arising from post separation transaction are not Community Property but her Separate Property. Some of the elements of her action were during the marriage. However all the elements of the cause of action did not accrue till after the Date of Separation. It is her Separate Property. It was a malpractice action against attorney who set up trust during the marriage.

Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3rd 572. paralegal at law firm did work for other attorneys office in the past. Now paralegal at new office working the other side. Under these circumstances disqualification is appropriate unless there is written consent or the law firm has effectively screened the employee from involvement with the litigation to which the information relates (Chinese Walls). Attorney can be disqualified from court under CCP 128(a)(5) in the inherent power of court to control litigation. – when a substantial relationship exists the courts presume the attorney possesses the confidential information of the former client material to the present representation. 

Jensen v. Hartford (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th  698. ----- direct quotes.

This court, in River West, described the substantial relationship test as requiring the former client to "show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein {Page 111 Cal.App.4th 707} the attorney previously represented him, the former client." If the former client succeeds in doing so, the court "will assume that during the course of the former representation confidences were disclosed to the attorney bearing on the subject matter of the representation" and it "will not inquire into their nature and extent." (River West, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1302-1303, emphasis added.) The court felt that imposing this low threshold of proof upon the aggrieved client was the best method of enforcing the attorney's duty of absolute fidelity and of implementing the spirit of rule 3-310(E). (Id. at p. 1303.)

----- We agree that the question whether an attorney should be disqualified in a successive representation case turns on two variables: (1) the relationship between the legal problem involved in the former representation and the legal problem involved in the current representation, and (2) the relationship between the attorney and the former client with respect to the legal problem involved in the former representation. We emphasize, however, the significance of the latter factor in the application of the Ahmanson formula. [6] If the relationship between the attorney and the former client is shown to have been direct -- that is, where the attorney was personally involved in providing legal advice and services to the former client -- then it must be presumed that confidential information has passed to the attorney and there cannot be any delving into the specifics of the communications between the attorney and the former client in an effort to show that the attorney did or did not receive confidential information during the course of that relationship. As a result, disqualification will depend upon the strength of the similarities between the legal problem involved in the former representation and the legal problem involved in the current representation. This is so because a direct attorney-client relationship is inherently one during which confidential information "would normally have been imparted to the attorney by virtue of the nature of [that sort of] former  representation," and therefore it will be conclusively presumed that the attorney acquired confidential information relevant to the current representation if it is congruent with the former representation. (Ahmanson, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1454; see also Adams v. Aerojet-General Corp, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1332 [personal involvement in rendering legal advice to client requires disqualification if compared representations are substantially related]; River West v. Nickel, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d at p. 1302-1303.) fn. 6 {Page 111 Cal.App.4th 710} ----- On the other hand, where the former attorney-client relationship is peripheral or attenuated instead of direct, then the presumption will not be applied in the absence of an adequate showing that the attorney was in a position vis-à-vis the client to likely have acquired confidential information material to the current representation. In these circumstances, the relationship between the compared representations shares equal billing with the relationship between the attorney and the former client, and the two aspects of the Ahmanson test are assessed in combination in determining whether disqualification is mandated. ----- Therefore, when ruling upon a disqualification motion in a successive representation case, the trial court must first identify where the attorney's former representation placed the attorney with respect to the prior client. If the court determines that the placement was direct and personal, this facet of Ahmanson is settled as a matter of law in favor of disqualification and the only remaining question is whether there is a connection between the two successive representations, a study that may not include an "inquiry into the actual state of the attorney's knowledge" acquired during the attorneys' representation of the former client. (Ahmanson, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1453; Adams v. Aerojet-General, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1332; City National Bank v. Adams, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 327; River West v. Nickel, supra, {Page 111 Cal.App.4th 711} 188 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1302-1303.) However, if the court determines the former attorney was not placed in a direct, personal relationship with the former client, the court must assess whether the attorney was positioned during the first representation so as to make it likely the attorney acquired confidential information relevant to the current representation, given the similarities or lack of similarities between the two. 

Stacy Lynn Marcus on Habeas corpus (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th  1099  filed 4-18-06. Because visitation order that mother allegedly disobeyed was not written order, there is no basis for contempt. Order made on record orally in court. Judge orders one attorney to make a written order. He does so just before wife contempt. She had no notice of the order all agree. Contempt proceeding all based on the oral stipulation in court. This is not valid order for contempt. Contempt may not be based on oral ruling of the court. Need a written order. Must be a written order or a minute order. Good discussion of contempt issues.

CRC 375. Motion or application for continuance of trial

(a) [Trial dates are firm] To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.

(Subd (a) repealed and adopted effective January 1, 2004; amended effective January 1, 1995.)

(b) [Motion or application] A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under rule 379, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.

(Subd (b) repealed and adopted effective January 1, 2004; amended effective January 1, 1995.)

(c) [Grounds for continuance] Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only upon an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if:

(A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or

(B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

(Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)

(d) [Other factors to be considered] In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

IRMO Levin and Ligon, filed 6-30-06, Settlement of legal malpractice action in which husband asserted loss of Community Property assets estopped him from claiming Community Property interest in assets. Husband sues former attorney for loss of Community Property assets. He cannot then go into family court and ask to have the assets divided.

Life Insurance of North America v. Cassidy (1984) 35 Cal. 3rd 599 – H has life insurance with W as beneficiary. In MSA they waive all interest in each others property, etc. Court holds that general language of MSA will not be construed to include an assignment or renunciation of the expectancy interest conferred on the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy or a will UNLESS IT CLEARLY appears that the agreement was intended to deprive either spouse of such a right.

IRMO Jensen filed 12-18-03. (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th 587  parents of autistic child cannot require court to adjudicate child's personal interests once child turns age 18. Child was autistic and in Thailand with mom. Parties stipulate that she return to California after age 18. Court says even if parents stipulate, it can't be enforced since she is an adult. FC 3910 on Child Support for adult child not apply. It is just for support and that is all. It is up to the adult child to come to California or not.