The coronavirus pandemic has complicated life for people worldwide and has been devastating for high-risk individuals and their families.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/13/2020 -- One group of people who may be at increased risk of harm during the COVID-19 outbreak is victims of domestic violence. The New York Times reports that movement restrictions aimed at containing the virus have resulted in an uptick in in-home violence, as well as violence that's more severe and frequent.

For victims of domestic violence, getting help in the time of coronavirus can feel impossible.

Not only are victims required to stay home unless leaving for essential activities, but the courts are also closed right now, which means that any family law actions have been temporarily put on hold. However, despite court closures, victims of domestic violence can still seek emergency protection orders.

California Courts have issued guidance for those victims of domestic violence who need a restraining order.

Rather than filing papers with the court--as is the standard course of action when the courts are open and operating as normal--a victim of domestic violence should call the police and request an emergency protective order (EPO). For those who are in an emergency situation where their safety and physical wellbeing are at risk, there should be no hesitation to call 9-1-1 to get emergency help and request an EPO.

The police have the authority to request an EPO that can be used to protect victims and their children against domestic abuse, stalking, and being kidnapped.

"Our law firm recognizes that while closures and stay-at-home orders are necessary to protect society and reduce the spread of COVID-19, there are some people who are going to be very adversely affected by the orders," explained family law attorney Terry Szucsko of Lvovich & Szucsko, P.C., "Our lawyers are available to help victims of domestic violence seek restraining orders during this time, as well as prepare for hearings as soon as the court reopens. We are committed to helping victims get the services they need during this troubling and trying time."

For those who are already protected by restraining orders that were issued while the court was opened, the restraining order may be automatically be extended for up to 30 days. Local courts have posted guidance for victims of domestic violence who need to learn more about that status of existing restraining orders or/and changes in court dates. While all family law trials and evidentiary hearings have been vacated in California courts, requests for domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) trials will remain on the calendar but will be continued by the court for 21 days, as of April 1, 2020.

If you are a victim of domestic violence who has questions about resources and help available to you, do not hesitate to contact Lvovich & Szucsko P.C. . In addition to legal counsel, you can also seek shelter at a local domestic violence shelter or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

All California couples now have a choice once limited to same-sex unions and heterosexual couples over 62.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 01/14/2020 -- California initially legalized domestic partnerships in 1999.

Some conservatives initially opposed the law's expansion, citing concerns that it would erode traditional marriage. But the expected opposition did not materialize, and the expansion proposal passed almost unanimously. "We're in a different era," explained Unmarried America director Thomas Coleman. "A hundred years from now, domestic partnership may be the predominant lifestyle."

To legally set up a domestic partnership, couples must file a form with the Secretary of State and pay a $10 or $33 fee.

"For the most part, a marriage and a domestic partnership are essentially the same," observed San Francisco family law attorney Terry A. Szucsko. "But there are some important differences to consider."

Many couples want to formalize their relationships and publicize their unions, but they do not want the religious connotations of a marriage, he explained. Other people have the opposite concern. They have been married and divorced or widowed, and for personal or religious reasons, they do not want to get remarried.

Most people over 18 are eligible. The main exceptions are people who are related in a prohibited way, legally incapable of consenting to such a relationship, or in another marriage or domestic partnership.

Generally, the same rights and responsibilities apply to both married couples and domestic partners. Domestic partners may change their names, take advantage of survivorship laws, adopt children, and own community property.

However, federal law does not recognize California domestic partnerships. So, there are some limitations, such as the inability to:

Sponsor a non-citizen domestic partner (a/k/a the 90-day fiance),

Jointly adopt a child born in a foreign country, or

Share federal employment and other benefits.

Additionally, domestic partners must continue to file separate federal income tax returns, since they are not legally married. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. The filing status enables domestic partners to avoid the so-called marriage penalty, but also limits their eligibility for disability and other benefits.

Dissolving a domestic partnership is also different from dissolving a marriage. Domestic partners who were together for less than five years, have no children, and meet certain financial requirements can simply file termination forms with the Secretary of State. A traditional divorce is an option in other cases. The same community property laws apply to domestic partners who undergo divorces.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 12/23/2019 -- According to court documents, the two agreed to divide legal and physical custody of Axl, their 6-year-old son. Also, in a rather unusual move, neither party will pay alimony or child support as both of them are "fully self-supporting."

In case you are wondering, Fergie will go back to her maiden name, which is Stacy Ann Ferguson.

"When a divorce involves a young child, co-parenting arrangements usually take center stage," observed San Francisco family law attorney Terry A. Szucsko, a Certified Family Law Specialists "Parenting is not easy and co-parenting is even harder, so we try to make it as easy as possible." California's family laws have usually been ahead of the curve, he added. The Golden State was the first jurisdiction to pass a no-fault divorce law and also the first one to pass a joint custody law. 

Co-parenting takes things an extra step. Under the former joint custody law, one parent, usually the mother, was the managing conservator. The other parent, usually the father, had visitation rights. Now, both parents are expected, and encouraged, to assume an active child-rearing role. 

So, divorced parents must do more than tolerate each other. Each parent must encourage the child to have a relationship with the other parent. Failure to do so could be grounds for redesignation. The residential parent (managing conservator) could become the nonresidential parent (possessory conservator) and vice versa.

Parenting time division is another area.

In some situations, the traditional every other weekend and every other holiday arrangement is in the best interests of the child. But in many cases, compliance with California's co-parenting requirement requires a different arrangement, such as:

Nesting: The parents switch houses and the child always remains in the same place. This arrangement is very stable for the child, but obviously only works if the parents are on good terms.

Block Scheduling: This division is very kid-friendly as well. Children spend a week or two with Parent A, a week or two with Parent B, and the cycle repeats. Aside from some accommodations for major holidays, this schedule remains in effect twelve months a year.

Extended Weekend: In many areas of life, small changes make a big difference. Starting weekends on Thursday and ending them on Monday makes the parenting time division much closer to 50-50.

California's new laws also make it easier to modify a parenting plan, especially if the modification is agreed.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

On November 1, 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued a published decision in County of Los Angeles v. Christopher W.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 12/04/2019 -- This case involved an unusual paternity dispute. A trial court held one man was a child's legal father. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found another man, identified by the mother as the biological father, was actually the father.

The mother had a relationship with a man named Christoper.

After that relationship ended, the mother learned she was pregnant. She informed Christoper that he was the father. But the parties did not resume their relationship. During her pregnancy, the mother started dating another man named Colin.

The mother gave birth to her child–identified in court records as "M.D."–in May 2014. The birth certificate did not list a father. Christopher was present at the hospital for the birth. But he only interacted with M.D. on two other occasions afterwards.

Meanwhile, Colin and the mother moved in together. M.D. started referring to Colin as "daddy."

Colin also posted photographs of himself and M.D. to his Facebook account. Some of the comments on the photos described Colin as M.D.'s father. However, Colin never told anyone he was M.D.'s father. Nor did the mother list Colin as the father on any official records.

In April 2015, Los Angeles County took legal action against Christopher.

The County argued that as the child's father, Christopher should pay $1,420 per month in support. Christopher denied he was M.D.'s father. He further alleged Colin was the "presumed father" because he took M.D. into his home and "openly held him out as his son."

Genetic testing confirmed Christopher was M.D.'s biological father. Nevertheless, a judge found Colin was the "presumed father." The judge cited Colin's Facebook posts as "dispositive" evidence he considered M.D. his son. The judge therefore ruled Colin was the legal father and Christopher did not have to support M.D.

The mother appealed the judge's ruling.

The Second District agreed with her that the trial judge's decision was incorrect. The appeals court explained the genetic testing created a presumption that Christopher was M.D.'s father. This presumption was "sufficient" to rebut any evidence (i.e., the Facebook posts) suggesting Colin was the father. And it was not in M.D's interest to recognize Colin as his father–especially since neither the mother nor Colin sought such recognition.

San Francisco family law attorney Terry A. Szucsko said this case illustrates the importance of establishing legal paternity as early as possible in a child's life.

"California law is designed to prevent 'fatherless' children. The Second District's decision makes that clear. A biological father cannot avoid his child support obligations by trying to declare someone else the father. As the Court noted, such reasoning would 'create a disincentive' for other adults to become involved in a child's life, less they be forced into a long-term support obligation."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

A Sacramento court ruled a dying man's handwritten changes to his trust did not qualify as a valid amendment to the document.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 09/09/2019 -- Many people decide to make or amend their estate plan after learning they have a terminal illness. Unfortunately, some are unable to complete the process before it is too late.

In a recent decision, Pena v. Dey, the California Third District Court of Appeal confronted this situation. A Sacramento man, James Robert Anderson, attempted to amend his trust just before his death in May 2014. Anderson died after a four-year battle with cancer.

Anderson previously created a trust in 2004 and amended it in 2008. In March 2014, Anderson sent an estate planning attorney a copy of his trust with several handwritten notes. These "interlineations" indicated items that Anderson wished to alter in the trust. Together with these interlineations, Anderson attached a Post-It note. The note said, "Hi Scott, here they are. First one is 2004. Second is 2008. Enjoy! Best, Rob."

Sadly, Anderson died before the attorney could incorporate the interlineations into a new trust amendment. Anderson's successor trustee then asked a Sacramento County probate court for instructions. The trustee maintained Anderson's handwritten notes did not qualify as a "valid amendment to the trust."

The judge agreed. This prompted Grey Dey, Anderson's longtime friend and caregiver, to appeal, Dey stood to benefit from Anderson's attempted trust amendment. Before the Third District, he argued the delineations on the original trust should be treated as an amendment. Dey also maintained the Post-It note constituted a "signature" confirming Anderson's intent to amend his trust.

The appeals court disagreed and upheld the probate court's earlier ruling. In a published decision, the Third District said "the undisputed evidence" showed Anderson's notes provided his attorney guidance in preparing a trust amendment. The delineations were not, however, a valid trust amendment. Furthermore, the Post-It note was "a separate writing" from the delineations. It could not be reasonably construed as a signature amending the underlying trust.

San Francisco estate planning attorney Milla L. Lvovich said this case demonstrates why you should never wait to make a will or trust. "You never want to deal with your estate plan while lying on your deathbed. Even if you are not diagnosed with a terminal illness, a sudden accident can leave you unable to act. So if you are thinking about making a will or trust, it's best to speak with a lawyer right away."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The California legislature is currently considering a new statewide rent control policy.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 08/08/2019 -- Rent control remains a hotly contested issue throughout California. The California legislature is currently considering a new statewide rent control policy. Meanwhile, individual cities and counties continue to struggle with their own rent control inventories.

On July 30, a California appeals court sided with Santa Monica in its long-running effort to bring a single building back under rent control. The building in question was constructed before Santa Monica had rent control. But it was subject to rent control after the City adopted its policy in 1979. In 1983, the building's owner asked the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (RCB) for permission to take the property off the rental market. At the time, the owner said the property was "uninhabitable" and needed extensive repairs.
The RCB eventually granted permission to take the building out of rent control, but not the rental market. This was actually a mistake on the part of the Board's staff. And without the RCB's knowledge, the owner continued to rent the property at market rates. In 2016, tenants complained to the RCB. The Board then tried to reassert rent control over the property.

This prompted litigation. A Los Angeles judge held the RCB was "estopped" from placing the building back under rent control. The California Second District Court of Appeal reversed that decision in favor of the Board. According to the appeals court, estoppel did not apply here. In fact, the RCB was not "authorized to exempt the owners' residential rental units from rent control." The RCB could only allow the owner to remove the property from the rental market.
The Second District said the original permit remained valid. The owner could therefore demolish the building or convert it to non-rental units. But as long as the building remains on the rental market, it is subject to rent control.

San Francisco real estate attorney Milla L. Lvovich said the Second District's decision highlights the lengths officials will go to enforce rent control. "California is in the midst of a serious housing crunch. Cities and counties will not hesitate to use every legal tool at their disposal to bring rents down. All landlords need to be aware of the specific rent control laws applicable in their area. And tenants should not hesitate to speak with an attorney if they believe their property should be subject to rent control."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Though the January 2019 news of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos divorce from wife MacKenzie may not have come as a surprise, many are shocked that the entire process was finalized within 90 days.

San Francisco, CA -- (ReleaseWire) -- 07/24/2019 -- Both ex-spouses revealed in separate Tweets on April 4, 2019 that they had reached an agreement on all matters related to property division, spousal support, and co-parenting of their children.

According to Bay Area's KRON News Channel 4, MacKenzie was happy to be transferring her interests in the Washington Post, and other assets to her now-ex-husband. In turn, Jeff gave over $35.6 billion in Amazon stock, though he retains voting rights. Both look forward to working together as they share co-parenting duties regarding their four children.

Terry A. Szucsko, attorney and partner at Lvovich & Szucsko P.C. in the San Francisco Bay Area, has extensive experience in divorce and related family law issues. "I can understand why some people are surprised that the Bezos' divorce was finalized in just three months. When a couple has accumulated that kind of wealth over a 25-year marriage that includes four kids, you'd expect that the process would draw out over years."

Mr. Szucsko followed up by pointing out how agreements are the best strategy for resolving divorce-related issues, whenever possible. Divorcing spouses benefit from reaching compromise as opposed to having a court make a decision on property division, alimony, and child custody, visitation, and support.

"And never underestimate the importance of retaining a divorce lawyer for the process," he stressed. "An agreement on key issues may be ideal, but you're less likely to reach one when you try to go it alone. There can be too much history, emotion, and anger between the parties, especially in a high net worth divorce."

California divorce laws allow parties to resolve all divorce issues by agreement, and the court will usually not disturb the arrangement. Of course, any custody and visitation matters involving minor children are still subject to the best interests standard. An attorney can guide you through the process efficiently while still ensuring protection of your legal rights, an approach Mr. Szucsko calls "negotiating from a position of strength."

The end result of divorce by agreement is that former couples can maintain an amicable relationship, an advantage when they are also co-parenting. Tweets from both Bezos' are proof, as each of the former spouses expressed gratitude toward each other as they finalized the divorce process.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm