Thursday, November 12, 2020


Orig. pub. Dec 2014! 


 We only use the services of paralegals that have worked in legal industry for 10 or more years, and given that COVID has constantly been changing the laws almost monthly, there are always new and different scenarios coming up, especially in evictions and how one can get into court to begin with?

 In Butte County, in family law, pro se clients are attending court hearings but the numbers are limited. Court call is encouraged by all Courts but it can start to become expensive, and you may not be heard as effectively as if you were present in court (assuming you know how to argue your case..) 

   Most paralegal work involves knowing the method for effectively doing the form paperwork, 
but more importantly how the document is put together both legally and in what format....

You may try to explain and produce your case on paper,
 but whether judge actually gets your drift, 
assuming that you explained it correctly, is another story. 

Judges are used to reading pro se documents since 
70% of litigants are pro se (representing themselves..)  

A majority of pro se filers do not end up getting what
 they requested from what we have seen.

And most pro se filers really do not know how to effectively lay out their case for judges.  
If you are not winning your case, there is a fairly good chance that either you do
 not have a good case---OR_ you are making errors, or not putting
 forward the best solution or explanation .......

Attorney has been doing legal work for over twenty five years+ and has done family law, civil law and motion, grandparent rights, criminal cases, bankruptcy, administrative hearings, DMV hearings, animal law (especially with CA penal code), wage garnishment problems, CPS related cases, and more. Our main paralegal has extensive history working on discovery and difficult issues within extended discovery. 

-------------------> Note--Nearly all of our work is done online and then clients receive their hard copy. For more difficult cases we meet with clients to ensure the veracity of the case facts. Attorney herein has done many DV TRO cases for clients with a 99.5% win rate. If you cannot win a DV either you did it incorrectly, or you did not have the data which would enable you to win (in which case you should have likely had more help to begin with..)

Call us today if you need quasi legal help with your documents, or limited legal help also!

Divorces and Facebook.........Is There a Link???

Originally pub. 2016       

 But Truth Doesn't Change! 

 We are not fans of Facebook.  However, the majority of people these days apparently are, and many people simply love to tell everyone everything.  Especially online.  When there is no privacy left, then what do you have?  

People have the ability now to learn nearly anything that you may have put online--- for example, your excess drinking, your bad night out with the boys or girls, your arrest because you were drinking, you told everyone the wife called CPS on you, and there is no end to the things people want to blab about?

Facebook is a haven for people who can't shut up, therefore, if you need dirt on your partner because you are the custodial parent and want to remain the custodial parent, Facebook is the first place to look. 

 There are also legal cases which seem to state that even attorneys cannot "friend" people just to get data, the attorney is possibly required to disclose his/her actual status (of being attorney related to case, if applicable?)  Also the use of one's Facebook account is causing issues in the courtroom,


Facebook, Divorce Linked In New Study - Huffington Post

The Huffington Post
Jun 6, 2013 - The study, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, found that ...

Facebook has Become a Leading Cause in Divorce Cases ...

A recent study has found a correlation between relationship health and Facebook use that may cause more people to want to switch off the computer and ...

The Real Reason Facebook Causes One-Third Of Divorces ...

Nov 13, 2014 - 33% of divorced couples cite Facebook as a reason for their split. .... and explain my problems to him, he cast ...

The marriage killer: One in five American divorces now involve

Daily Mail
Dec 1, 2010 - A staggering 80 per cent of divorce lawyers have also reported a ... Theproblem is not Facebook, it is the loss of love in your marriage,' he said.

How Facebook can ruin your relationship: 'Site induced ...

Daily Mail
Jun 7, 2013 - ... that Facebook use increases risk of cheating, break-up and divorce. ... younger the relationship, the greater the risk of Facebook problems.

Facebook a top cause of relationship trouble, say US lawyers › Technology › Facebook

The Guardian
Mar 8, 2011 - Social networking site becoming primary source of evidence in divorceproceedings and custody battles, lawyers say.

Study: Facebook affects divorce rates, marital satisfaction ... › News

Jul 14, 2014 - “We don't know whether Facebook is causing divorce or divorce is ... the conclusion of a link between social networks and marital problems.

What is Facebook Doing to Your Relationship Status? - ABC ...

May 24, 2012 - It turns out the kiss of death for marriages might be more like a poke. A third of all divorce filings in 2011 contained the word "Facebook," and ...

Does Facebook break up marriages? - MarketWatch › Personal Finance

Jul 13, 2014 - “We don't know whether Facebook is causing divorce or divorce is causing ... a connection between social networking and marital problems.

Wednesday, November 11, 2020



    ------->YES, We have extensive experience in court on almost all possible issues !
Custody hearings, mediation, and Requests for Orders, DV TRO cases,etc. we usually can help with.

FATHERS' RIGHTS, Dads that have gotten bad deals in mediation--yes--

   ____>YES , We have experience in all types of mediation which is court ordered....

NOT married, and ignored in custody hearings by not being served? 

   -----> YES, we can help with these issues as well!

Tuesday, November 10, 2020


Attorney has extensive experience with cases involving animal law for California, including litigation in both state and federal courts.  Animal law can cover issues which may overlap both civil, criminal, family law, and many other areas---and the federal anti terrorism law (AETA) Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is still in place.  Therefore, if some animal activists were to invade your farm or your family animal business for example, the case might be prosecuted under Federal or State laws or both.

Butte County encompasses many areas of both farming and rural businesses. Even an animal activist targeting a pony ride business might be of great concern, since animal activists are known to be both
brazen, and they do not care who they harm for the most part? Most of them are vegan and most vegans do not eat any meat products or consume much protein. Some strict vegan parents have gone to jail after failing to feed their own baby any protein, and the baby died?

Many activists will put animals on the hierarchy of being higher than all humans. Of course while we do not agree with this, they are entitled to believe what they want. However they can't go around breaking laws just to prove how they feel?!


Wednesday, August 26, 2020

When Custody is Given to an Abuser.....Research Cases

FVAP Custody Case Law

Below is a list of FVAP’s published cases regarding child custody. These cases are binding legal precedent in all trial courts in California, and can be used to support domestic violence-related cases in trial court. But please note: This is not a comprehensive list. Rather, it is a list of FVAP’s published successful custody appellate cases since 2012.
Laws often change. Reviewing this list is not a suitable substitute for legal research specific to your case. Additional legal research should be done before citing any case law in trial court. While a decision below may be used to support your (or your client’s) case in court, it may not be the best decision to use in your particular case, and/or there may be additional cases that you should cite. This list does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and FVAP.
To read a decision, click on the case name. See our Legal Resource Library for toolkits, tip sheets, court templates, and other custody resources for survivors.

When custody is granted to an abuser:

In re the Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487.  The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court made two mistakes (twice “abused its discretion”) by awarding joint legal custody without applying Family Code section 3044, which says courts should almost never award joint legal custody to a parent who has committed domestic abuse against the other parent in the past five years, because it would be detrimental to a child’s best interest. This presumption against awarding joint custody applies when there has been a finding of abuse, even if a request for restraining order has been denied. Until the abuser rebuts (overcomes) the presumption against awarding joint custody, the presumption must be applied every time a court considers custody, even if the custody order will only be temporary. (FVAP litigated this appeal, which the court published.)
Jaime G. v. H.L. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 794  Under California law there is a presumption against awarding any custody to a domestic abuser. This means the court must give the survivor sole legal and physical custody, unless the abuser shows the presumption has been overcome, or “rebutted.”  When deciding whether the presumption has been rebutted, the court must consider 7-factors which are designed to help the trial court consider the effects of domestic violence and whether it will reoccur.  The presumption and rebuttal factors are found in California Family Code section 3044.  The 7 rebuttal factors are: best interest of the child(ren), successful completion of a batterer’s intervention program, successful completion of alcohol or drug counseling – if appropriate, successful completion of a parenting class – if appropriate, whether the perpetrator is on probation or parole and complying with the terms and conditions, whether the perpetrator is under a restraining order and has complied with the terms and conditions, and whether the perpetrator has committed any further acts of domestic violence.
The opinion in Jaime G. establishes that a trial court cannot award any type of custody to a domestic abuser without first making findings in writing or on the record (orally) about each of the seven-factors.  It is not enough just to find that joint custody is in the best interest of the child, the first factor.

When there is a recent restraining order against the abusive parent:

Christina L. v. Chauncey B. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 731. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court is obligated to apply the Family Code section 3044 in cases when there was a recent restraining order issued against a parent. Code 3044 is the “rebuttable presumption” against granting custody to an abuser, which says a trial court should err on the side of not giving child custody to a parent who was found to have committed domestic abuse. (FVAP litigated this appeal and obtained publication.)

When a parent who committed domestic abuse is granted 50/50 child visitation:

Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655. After years of violent abuse from her ex-husband, the trial court granted our client a restraining order. At the same time, the court granted a 50% visitation timeshare of her children, meaning both parents had the children for about half of the time. This order effectively got around the legal presumption against awarding joint custody to an abuser (Family Code 3044) by calling the arrangement “sole custody” to our client, and “visitation” with the parent who had committed abuse. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court, and confirmed that a 50/50 visitation timeshare order is in fact the same thing as a joint custody order. Therefore, the Court of Appeal said, the trial court committed an “abuse of discretion” by awarding the 50/50 visitation timeshare without applying the legal presumption of Family Code 3044, which says courts should err on the side of not granting custody to a parent who was found to be abusive. This case clarifies that the Family Code 3044 legal presumption (against awarding joint custody to a parent who committed domestic abuse) remains in effect for 5 years, even if a restraining order against the abuser has expired. This is also the first published opinion to confirm that Family Code section 3011(e)(1) requires the trial court to state, in writing or on the record, its reasons for deciding that a parent who committed abuse has overcome the section 3044 presumption, and should be awarded joint custody. Thus, the appellate court’s opinion clarifies the interplay between section 3044 and section 3011. (FVAP litigated this appeal and obtained publication.) Pro bono co-counsel: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, and Legal Aid Society of Orange County

Out-of-state findings of domestic violence in custody cases:

Ellis v. Lyons (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 404. This is the first California case to clarify that an out-of-state court’s finding of domestic violence triggers California’s presumption against granting custody to an abuser, under Family Code section 3044. Importantly, this case also confirms that if a trial court relied, at all, on California’s preference that both parents have “frequent and continuing contact” with their children to rebut (overcome) the 3044 presumption, then the decision is automatically “infected with legal error,” and must be sent back to the trial court for a new custody hearing. This is because the preference that both parents have “frequent and continuing contact” with their children is not an allowable reason for rebutting (overcoming) the 3044 presumption, because California recognizes that domestic violence is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of children. (FVAP obtained publication)

Modifying out-of-state custody orders after fleeing abuse:

Keisha W. v. Marvin M. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 581. The Court of Appeal ruled that California trial courts can modify (have jurisdiction to modify) another state’s custody order at the request of a survivor of domestic violence who fled to California because of abuse that happened in the other state. This is because, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), California can become the legal “home state” of a child within 6 months of the abused parent filing for a restraining order and custody order in California. (FVAP litigated this appeal and obtained publication.)

International “child abduction” by non-abusive parent:

Noergaard v. Noergaard (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 76. The Court of Appeal ruled that, in an international child abduction case where it is alleged that the child faces “grave risk” of harm if returned to the home country, there must be a fair hearing where the trial court considers any relevant evidence about abuse when making any decisions about important issues. The trial court in this case failed to provide this fair hearing to the mother, who alleged that spousal and child abuse by the father made it unsafe for them to return to the country. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision and confirmed that, where there is evidence that the status quo in the home country was abusive, the survivor’s and children’s speedy return to the home country should not be the goal for California courts. (FVAP filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief and obtained publication)

When custody is granted to an abuser with a prohibited reason for custody rulings:

In SY v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App 5th 324 (2018) the Court of Appeal ruled that English language fluency cannot be used as a reason to grant custody. English language fluency now joins 6 other prohibited reasons to grant custody including: race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, relative economic position, and working motherhood. FVAP’s successful work to pass California legislation, AB 2044, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, nullified many of the parts of the decision that we disagree with. (FVAP litigated this appeal and obtained publication.) Pro bono co-counsel: Horvitz & Levy, Legal Aid Society of San Diego)

Saturday, June 13, 2020


Domestic Violence Crimes Examples............. Most of the ones immediately below, can possibly
cause you to be charged criminally, it likely would depend on the exact circumstances and the possibility that you already have a criminal record..............
 The enumerated Penal Codes below are found on the Shouse criminal law site online, these are NOT all that one could be convicted of, but just a named few.............

  • 3.1. Penal Code 273.5, corporal injury to a spouse or inhabitant
  • 3.2. Penal Code 243(e)(1), domestic battery
  • 3.3. Penal Code 273d, child abuse
  • 3.4. Penal Code 273a, child endangerment
  • 3.5. Penal Code 270, child neglect/failure to provide care
  •  Penal Code 653.2, posting harmful information on the internet
  • Penal Code 653.2 PC – Electronic communication device; prohibited distribution or publication of personal identifying information; definitions. (“(a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. 
  • (b) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cell phones, computers, Internet Web pages or sites, Internet phones, hybrid cellular/Internet/wireless devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs) , video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 2510(12) of Title 18 of the United States Code. 
  • (c) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply: (1) “Harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing the person and that serves no legitimate purpose. (2) “Of a harassing nature” means of a nature that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing of the person and that serves no legitimate purpose.”)

Domestic violence TROs are not exceptionally difficult to obtain, and Judges know this.
 Many parents actually make up facts just to get the DV TRO in the first place?
        Obviously things like child abuse, elder abuse, child endangerment and neglect might actually cause you to lose your kids, or worse; however, many domestic violence issues involve things such as posting private material, on the Internet; such conduct might not necessarily get you into jail, but it would not be something judges like to see?

 Looking at the DV TRO forms, one can obviously see that MANY things can rise to the level of "domestic violence"...




Oct 19, 2019 - We can provide assistance with family law issues such as motions for modification, raise or lower support, change your current visitation ...

Affordable Paralegal Sacto/Roseville 916.877.5297 For Butte County call ... Sacto, Chico/Oroville 45% In some cases we may be able to provide Limited Scope Attorney Services  See this link for information on how it works, it may be right for your case..... .