I AM A LIEUTENANT COMMANDER AND I AM GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE. IN TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT LAWYER FOR ME, I HAVE CONSULTED WITH AT LEAST SIX. I AM NOW WORRIED THAT TOO MANY LAWYERS KNOW MY BUSINESS. SO I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS:

(1) IF I DECIDE NOT TO HIRE A LAWYER, WILL OUR MEETING STILL BE CONFIDENTIAL?

Yes.

The decision by you and the lawyer, about working with each other in the future, is irrelevant. You interviewed the lawyer in that lawyer’s capacity as a member of the State Bar of California, and as an expert in California family law. Hence, even though no formal attorney-client relationship exists yet, all communications during this interview are protected by the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality.

(2) WHAT DOES "ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY" MEAN?

Generally, it means that the lawyer must not disclose any communication during your interview to any other person, without your permission.

This does not cut both ways. You are free to say anything, to anyone, about what was said during that interview. However, if you do, the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality may be gone.

(3) IF I BRING SOMEONE WITH ME TO TALK TO THE LAWYER, WILL THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY STILL APPLY?

In this practice, people see us to talk about serious business. They are often sick with worry about a crisis affecting the most important aspects of their lives and the lives of their children.

In other words, they are not here for a game of Parcheesi.

Your interview with a lawyer is often a really good time to be in the company of someone you trust implicitly, for emotional support. This is why we invite anyone who consults with us, whether during the initial client interview or thereafter, to bring along such a support person.

Generally, when a third party is present while the lawyer and the client talk to each other, this ends the attorney client privilege of confidentiality about what was said. However, an exception occurs when that third party is there to aid the communication between the client and the lawyer. Support persons bring security and emotional support to the client. This helps the client to maintain a more rational perspective, to remember things more clearly, to understand the lawyer more easily, and to make better decisions. Support persons thereby aid the communication between the lawyer and the client, and the confidentiality is thereby preserved.

So interview as many lawyers as you need to, until you find one that fits, and bring a support person along if you want to.

I AM A SENIOR CHIEF IN THE NAVY, AND I AM NOT MARRIED. A FEW YEARS AGO, I HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN, WHO GAVE BIRTH A FEW MONTHS LATER. SHE WENT ON WELFARE, AND THE COUNTY SERVED ME WITH PAPERS. I DID NOT RESPOND IN TIME, AND THE COUNTY GOT A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ME AND GARNISHED MY WAGES. THAT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO. LOOKING BACK, I HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS THAT THE CHILD IS REALLY MINE, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THAT I CONTINUE PAYING CHILD SUPPORT. AM I OUT OF LUCK?

Last year, I would have said yes, you are way, way out of luck.

The time allowed for setting aside a default judgment is six months, so that everyone can rely on a judgment being final soon after it happens. So, if the County gets a default child support judgment against someone, collects child support from that person, and that person fails to object for 5 years, that person is out of luck.

Or, maybe not.

In a case from last year, two children were born in 1995, and their mother was on welfare. Mother lied to the County, saying that Non-Father was the real father. Non-Father never had any relationship with the children.

The County went to court in 1996, and got a child support judgment against Non-Father.

Non-Father went to court five years later. He argued that, even though the six month period had long since passed, the court should set aside the judgment anyway, because it was based on Mother’s lying about Non-Father being the real father.

The court confirmed that Non-Father's request was properly denied, "[b]y strict application of the law," because the maximum six months allowed for setting aside a default judgment had long since passed. The court also said that Mother's lying was not enough reason to ignore the rule.

However, the court said that the 6 month rule does not apply in this case. The court reasoned that, when the County concedes that Non-Father is in fact not the real father, the County can not then continue to saddle Non-Father with the responsibilities of a real father anyway, based solely on a procedural technicality.

Hence, it appears that a default child support judgment against a non-father might be set aside, well after the 6 month time limit has passed, where there is no other basis for holding the non-father responsible as a real father.

I AM CAREER NAVY, AND GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE. I PRIDE MYSELF ON BEING OBJECTIVE, UPBEAT, AND VERY GOOD AT MY JOB. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DIVORCE BEGAN, I HAVE BEEN DEPRESSED, AND SOMETIMES PARALYZED. MENTALLY, I’M FIRING ON ONLY ONE CYLINDER. THANK GOODNESS MY C.O. HASN’T REALIZED YET THAT I’M NOT FULLY FUNCTIONAL. DOES EVERYONE GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE FEEL THIS WAY?

Most people believe the most awful psychological experience anyone could have would be one’s own death or that of a loved one. However, for many who are separating after a long-term relationship, the separation is actually "three" times worse, as follows:

First, the end of a long-term relationship is, quite literally, the end of life as we know it. It therefore provides the same or a substantially similar psychological experience as that of our own death, and thereby the ultimate loss;

Second, ever since we were small children, we were taught to believe in the romantic notion of "happily ever after" for our domestic relationship. The end of that relationship provides the extraordinarily rude awakening of discovering the "happily ever after" clause is not valid. We discover that we were tricked and fooled for our entire lives into believing something that turns out to be a giant hoax, a cruel prank. We thereby experience the ultimate humiliation; and,

Third, we were also taught that we could trust our domestic partner more than we could trust anyone else in the world. When the relationship ends, we usually learn that the person we trusted most has turned against us, and uses our most intimate secrets against us. We thereby experience the ultimate betrayal.

Hence, the separation process often involves our most extreme and awful experiences of loss, humiliation, and betrayal.

Unfortunately, this does not include the full inventory of potential damage.

For example, the majority of divorces and separations that go to court are ugly. They involve almost unbearable stress, ugly conflict, major losses of time and money, compromised integrity, substantial damage to the parents’ psychological health, and collateral damage to the psychological health of the children.

Hence, the end of a long-term domestic relationship will often be the most awful situation that someone will experience. So if you find yourself under such unfortunate circumstances, hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

I AM A SENIOR CHIEF, AND MY MARRIAGE IS ON THE ROCKS. THE WORD IN THE GALLEY IS THAT NO ONE WINS IN A DIVORCE, OTHER THAN THE LAWYERS, AND THAT IT WILL COST A LOT OF MONEY. I HAVE ALSO HEARD THAT I CAN MAKE MY DIVORCE EASIER ON THE POCKET BOOK, BY SETTLING INSTEAD OF GOING TO COURT. IS THAT TRUE? AND HOW DO I KNOW WHAT AND WHEN TO SETTLE?

The saying in family court is “A good, workable settlement leaves both parties about equally outraged.”

And often saves the parties a lot of money, time, and stress in the long run.

Every time the parties go to court before trial, it will probably cost each party more than $1,500.00 for attorney fees and costs. The sky is the limit, depending on the complexity of the issues, and on the cantankerousness of the parties and their respective attorneys. That comes to a total of at least $3,000.00 for both parties.

Every time the parties go to trial, it will probably cost each party more than $15,000.00 for attorney fees and costs. Again, the sky is the limit, depending on the complexity of the issues, and on the cantankerousness of the parties and their respective attorneys. That comes to a total of at least $30,000.00 for both parties.

That’s a lot of lunch money.

Do the math. If you settle, you can spend your money on sending your kids to college. If you go to court, you will spend your money on sending your lawyer’s kids to college.

Obviously, not all cases can be settled early, and many cannot be settled at all. However, in my practice, when the best possible settlement my client and I can negotiate appears to be lopsided against my client by $15,000.00 or less, I usually suggest that my client take it. The client and the other party are going to lose at least twice that much on attorney fees and costs if the case goes to trial, and the results after trial are never certain.

Besides, litigation is seriously stressful. It will permeate your life and the lives of your children and other loved ones. Our hair turns gray fast enough already. And gray hair will look really stupid on the heads of your children before they are out of high school.

And please! Don’t be one of those vindictive people who are so anxious to keep the other party from getting a dime that they will spend a hundred dollars to do it. Your children will eventually end up with most or all of it, anyway. When all is said and done, it makes little difference who keeps it for them in the interim.

I’M A LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, AND I AM GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE. I ALWAYS HEARD THAT THE PROPERTY GETS SPLIT 50/50, BUT MY EX’S LAWYER ARGUES THAT MY EX SHOULD GET MORE THAN THAT. IF WE GO BACK TO COURT, COULD THAT HAPPEN?

Yes it could.

The general rule is that assets and debts acquired by either spouse during the marriage are usually community property owned equally by both spouses, and are therefore split between the spouses evenly when they divorce. However, all rules have their exceptions. Here are some of the major exceptions to this rule:

A. When one of the spouses acquires an asset or debt during the marriage, the asset or debt belongs exclusively to that acquiring spouse, if:

(1) The asset or debt is acquired before the spouses were legally married; or,

(2) The asset or debt is acquired after the spouses begin living separate and apart forever, in anticipation of divorce, whether or not the divorce has become final; or,

(3) The asset is a gift or inheritance, from someone other than one of the spouses; or,

(4) The asset is a gift from one spouse to the other, the asset is of a personal nature, such as jewelry or clothing, and the asset has a relatively small value; or,

(5) One of the spouses signs a document, which clearly reflects that spouse’s intent to convert that spouse’s share of an asset into the separate property of the other spouse.

B. One spouse’s separate property is assumed to be community property owned by both spouses, if:

(1) The separate property assets are mixed with community property assets, such as inherited funds which are placed in the same bank account as are community funds; or,

(2) Title to a separate property asset is changed to title in the name of both spouses, such as title to a house acquired before the marriage that is placed in the name of both spouses in order to get refinancing.

There are many other exceptions. However, these are the exceptions that are the most common.

I AM A RETIRED NAVAL OFFICER, AND I AM ENJOYING MY RETIREMENT. MY CHILDREN ARE NOW PARENTS, AND I LOVE SEEING MY GRANDCHILDREN. HOWEVER, MY CHILDREN WON’T LET ME SEE MY GRANDCHILDREN AS OFTEN AS I WOULD LIKE. WHY WOULD MY CHILDREN DO THAT? AND HOW DO I SEE MY GRANDCHILDREN MORE OFTEN, WITHOUT GOING TO COURT?

Sometimes parents feel that their children's grandparent trespasses on the authority and territory of the parents, and thereby becomes an unwelcome influence for both the parents and the children. This may be due to one or more of the following reasons:

1. Some grandparents forget that the parents, not the grandparents, are responsible for the daily health, safety and welfare of the grandchildren. These grandparents fail to understand that this constant daily interaction with the grandchildren allows the parents to know more about raising these particular, individual grandchildren in specific, than do the grandparents, in spite of the grandparents’ superior parenting experience in general;

 

2. Some grandparents have way too little to do, have far too much time in which to do it, and are thereby more likely to be uninvited meddlers;

 

3. Many (all?) grandparents forget that the parents are not children anymore, and find it difficult to accept that those "children" now, exclusively, have the same parental authority and responsibility, that the grandparents had back when the parents were still their children;

And, finally,

 

4. Some grandparents forget that parents need the space to make the same mistakes the grandparents made, before the parents can develop their parenting skills to the point where they, too, can someday be competent grandparents.

If you are a grandparent, and you feel that the parents prevent you from seeing your grandchildren as often as you would like, here are some suggestions that may change their minds without going to court:

1. If your parents trespassed on your authority and territory when you were a parent, remember how upsetting that was, and vow to avoid making the same mistake;

 

2. If your parents did not trespass on your authority and territory when you were a parent, vow to follow their enlightened example;

 

3. Have some faith in yourself. Your children would have turned out far worse if you had not been the parent you were. Now that your children are parents, they will probably mimic most of the good things you used to do, and avoid at least some of your mistakes; and,

 

4. Remember when your children were naughty, and how you used to threaten them with "just you wait until you have your own children . . .?" Sit back, relax, and finally enjoy your revenge.

I'm a chaplain aboard an aircraft carrier. I have been married to an insane person for the last six years. We have two kids, 2 and 5 years old. My wife cheats on me when I'm deployed, and she gave me a STD. Last time I was deployed, she got stoned again on meth and spent 3 days in lock-down at a mental ward after trying to kill herself. I heard from a neighbor that she screams at imaginary people and chases them down the street, leaving the kids alone. I'm fed up, and I want a divorce, but I'm worried that I might lose my children in a custody battle. What should I do?

A custody battle with your wife is the least of your worries. If you don't do something to protect your children, and pronto, they may be taken from you, either by the County or by a tragedy.

If your wife is in fact running that kind of freak show, the problem is more than just setting a horrible example for your children to follow. If Mom is not consistently supervising your kids, Mom leaves the children wide open to innumerable examples of danger when you are away, any one of which could end in tragedy.

That leaves you with basically 2 choices for protecting your children:

#1: You do it. Or,

#2: The County does it.

If a county social worker finds out that your wife place your kids in this kind of danger, the county will probably take the children away from Mom, because she is an unfit parent. And the county will probably take the children away from you, because you failed to protect the children from Mom.

Which would mean that the county might place your kids in a foster home, to be raised by complete strangers. And the experts tell us that this will leave your kids feeling rejected and abandoned by their parents, believing that they deserve to be punished this way because they, not you, did something horrifically wrong.

So if your children are going to be protected, raised and loved by a parent rather than by a stranger, then as a father and as a man, you have a job to do.

More specifically, you need to protect your children from the adverse effects of exposure to Mom immediately. And, to assure that your children learn the values that you hold dear, you need to maximize your children's exposure to their one remaining functional parent: you.

Which means you need to go to court to get the appropriate orders.

Now.

I AM CAREER NAVY, PREGNANT, AND GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE. MY HUSBAND HAS THE MORALS AND PARENTING SKILLS OF A SLEDGE HAMMER. HE SAYS THAT, NOT ONLY DOES HE DESPISE ME, HE ALSO WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH "MY" CHILD, AND WANTS TO GIVE UP HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS. FRANKLY, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. HOW DO WE DO THAT?

This is not what Dad really wants. Dad wants to give up his parental responsibilities, not his parental "rights"

In other words, you and Dad are not talking about terminating Dad's parental rights. Rather, you are talking about terminating your child's parental rights. There are 4 ways to do this:

#1: Dad dies.

#2: Both parents abuse, neglect or abandon the child, and fail to rehabilitate themselves. The state then declares both parents unfit, terminates the parental rights of both, and arranges an adoption into a new family.

#3: Mom remarries, and stepfather adopts Dad’s child.