California Divorce and Family Law

Vegas Ends Overnight Marriage Licenses

Getting married is as much a tradition in Las Vegas as slot machines and buffets. But when the urge to merge comes in the wee hours, you'll have to wait.

The county government said that starting next week, its marriage license bureau will no longer be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Citing budget constraints, county officials said the graveyard shift is being scrapped. Would-be brides and grooms will be able to apply for licenses only between 8 a.m. and midnight, seven days a week.

Officials told the Las Vegas Sun that there's really not much demand for marriage licenses during the overnight hours. Fewer than 4 percent of licenses are issued on that shift, city officials said.

Among them was a license issued to Britney Spears. However, the marriage was annulled after two days.

From WSBTV.

Vote would restrict public access to divorce details

Controversial legislation to restrict public access to financial information in California divorce cases cleared a key Capitol hurdle Wednesday.

Senate Bill 1015 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 12-3, and is headed to the Assembly floor for a vote that could come Thursday. The measure would require judges, upon request by either party, to redact the net worth, annual salary, and balances of bank, brokerage or other financial accounts. Judges also would be required to redact Social Security numbers and home addresses.

State Sen. Kevin Murray, a Culver City Democrat who proposed SB 1015, said it is needed to preserve privacy and discourage identity theft. "There are two things (Californians) don't like to be available to the public - one is their medical records, two is their financial information," Murray told the Assembly committee.

But First Amendment advocates, who oppose SB 1015, argue that such financial information is at the heart of divorce cases and is crucial to assessing whether courts handle them fairly. Tom Newton, representing the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said SB 1015 removes a judge's discretion to "weigh the facts and make a determination between the public right to access and privacy."

Tracy Kenny, of the state Judicial Council, which oversees California's courts, said redacting such financial information could leave the impression that judges have "something to hide." Under SB 1015, judges would use sensitive financial information to make key rulings, then redact the material, thus leaving "no ability for the public to understand the basis" for its decision. "We don't think that's good policy for the state," Kenny said.

SB 1015 has been criticized as a favor to billionaire grocery store magnate and financier Ron Burkle, a major campaign contributor to Democrats and some Republicans. Burkle cited an earlier version of the law, passed in 2003, in seeking to shield financial records in his own divorce case. In January, a state appeals court ruled that the previous law was unconstitutional because its restrictions on public access were too broad. SB 1015 attempts to remedy legal defects cited by the court.

Though certain financial records would be withheld upon request under SB 1015, other divorce-case information would be subject to judicial discretion. Specifically, judges would balance the rights of privacy and public interest in open courts when deciding whether to release information on debts, child support and certain tax information.

Follow the path to passage of this controversial legislation in the Sacramento Bee.

Divorce privacy bill wording assailed

A bill to restrict public access to divorce records was revised this week to allow couples to keep much financial information secret even without a judicial finding that their privacy outweighs the public's right to scrutinize court proceedings. Critics say the changes contradict amendments discussed earlier this month by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which said it would add language to the controversial bill requiring judges to balance privacy against the public's interest in open courts.

Instead, the new wording appears to create a loophole. It requires the divorce court to withhold certain information at the request of either party, without a balancing test. In addition to Social Security, home addresses and bank account numbers, the information that could be withheld on request includes account balances, annual salary or income, and net worth.

First Amendment advocates, who oppose Senate Bill 1015, say that such financial information is at the heart of divorce cases, crucial to the public's assessment of whether they are being handled fairly. "They are the records that are essential to understanding whether justice is being served," said Tom Newton, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. Newton said the new wording reverses the changes discussed earlier by the Judiciary Committee. "I truly am amazed at what they've done here," he said.

The changes are meant to strike a balance, said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, who has taken a lead role on the bill. Núñez is trying to forge a compromise on the bill and embraces the new wording, Maviglio said. Even though certain records can be withheld on request, Maviglio said, others are still subject to the balancing test, including debts, child support payments and certain tax information. "There's still a lot of balancing required," he said.

The bill has been criticized as a favor to billionaire grocery store magnate and financier Ron Burkle, a major campaign contributor to Democrats and some Republicans, who sought to seal records in his own divorce case. The bill's author, Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, and his staff did not return phone calls. Neither did Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, chair of the Judiciary Committee. Maviglio said that the changes resulted from the Judiciary Committee's agreement to come up with a set of amendments to reach a balance between public access and privacy. "On an issue that like this attempts to balance fundamental personal and constitutional rights, of course there will always be folks on both sides upset at the outcome," he said in an e-mail. "The key is fairness and ensuring that the bill passes constitutional muster."

The Judiciary Committee added an urgency clause to the bill, meaning that it can take effect immediately if it is passed by a two-thirds vote. It is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee next week.

Murray and other backers deny that the bill is motivated by a desire to help Burkle. Instead, they say it's meant to thwart identity theft and unwarranted invasions of privacy, concerns that are so pressing that the bill should take effect immediately instead of in 2007, as it would without an urgency clause. Burkle cited an earlier version of the law, passed in 2003, in his own divorce case. When Burkle tried to seal 28 pleadings, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press challenged the law.

In January, a state appeals court found that it was unconstitutional, ruling that the restrictions on the public's right of access were too broad. The ruling is on appeal to the California Supreme Court. Murray's bill tried to overcome the appellate court's objections by requiring only financial information to be blacked out instead of entire pleadings.

But First Amendment groups said the changes made little difference. The Judiciary Committee committed to adding language requiring judges to decide case-by-case whether privacy interests trumped the public's right of access. Susan Seager, a First Amendment lawyer who challenged the earlier law, said the changes this week would render the bill unconstitutional again.

From the Sacramento Bee.

New Move-Away Bill Making It Easier For Custodial Parents To Move-Away With Children Is Proposed

The California legislature will vote on a possible change to the current move-away law. Specifically, the proposed bill will codify the Burgess decision and overrule the recently decided LaMusga ruling. The bill will make it easier for custodial parents to move away with their children from the other parent.

Here is what Glenn Sacks has to say:

A new bill has been introduced into the California Senate which will make it more difficult for children of divorce to retain the loving bonds they share with both parents. The bill's backers made a sweeping, last minute amendment to the bill in order to slip it through before opponents had a chance to organize.

I want all of you to write the Judiciary Committee members in opposition to SB 1482 by clicking here.

Under SB 1482, which will be voted on by the California Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday (April 25), a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

SB 1482 is an attempt by the extremist Coalition for Family Equity and misguided feminists to reverse the progress made on behalf of California's children of divorce over the past two years. From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, which was interpreted by California courts as conferring unlimited move-away privileges. Under Burgess the bonds between tens of thousands of children and their noncustodial parents were needlessly ruptured.

The California Supreme Court addressed the problem in the LaMusga decision in April, 2004 by making it clear that courts can prevent children from being moved when it is detrimental to their interests. Among the factors deemed important were the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent.

In the summer of 2004 then Senate President John Burton, one of the most powerful people in California, introduced SB 730, a bill which would have granted custodial parents an almost unlimited right to move children far way from their noncustodial parents.

We organized opposition to SB 730, and thousands of you wrote and called Sacramento to oppose the bill. Our campaign gained widespread media attention and was endorsed by numerous mental health and family law professionals. Burton surprised Sacramento insiders by withdrawing the bill a few weeks later.

Today we must again fight to preserve the relationships children of divorce share with their mothers and fathers. To voice your opposition to SB 1482, click here. By filling in the form, you will be both faxing and emailing Sacramento. Also, we suggest you call the members of the committee--the phone numbers are here.

California family law has a huge influence on other states, and parents all over the United States have a large stake in what happens here. I hear every day from devastated parents who lost their children in the aftermath of the misguided Burgess decision. I often hear from parents whose relationships with their children were saved by the LaMusga decision.

The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482. Again, to take action, click here.

New Maine Law Expands to Protect Pets

Spurred by growing evidence of a link between domestic violence and animal abuse, Maine has enacted a first-in-the-nation law that allows judges to include pets in protection orders for spouses and partners leaving abusive relationships. In helping pets, advocates hope to help battered women and others who aren't willing to abandon their animals to be saved themselves.

''This is a very innovative, new approach, and it makes perfect sense because the protection order is a critical stage for women and others seeking protection,'' said Nancy Perry of the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States. Gov. John Baldacci says the law, which provides for civil penalties such as fines or jail time for those who violate a protection order, should give pause to abusers who might resort to violence or threats against pets as a means of keeping their victims from leaving a relationship.

Law enforcement officials, animal welfare agents and advocates for domestic violence victims say it's not unusual to hear of abusers who vent their rage against a partner's pet. ''It's just another tactic to keep power and control over the victim,'' said Cindy Peoples of Caring Unlimited, a shelter in York County.

Susan Walsh, whose dog and sheep were killed by her husband, said many victims stand to benefit from including pets in protection orders. ''I've heard so many horror stories from other women that I knew I was not alone,'' she said. When the bill came up for consideration at a public hearing in January, Walsh recounted how she remained in an abusive marriage in part out of fear for what might happen to her pets and farm animals if she left. Walsh said her husband shot two of her sheep inside their Ellsworth barn. Another time, when she was visiting her parents in Pennsylvania, he deliberately ran his truck over her deaf and blind border collie in their driveway, she said. Walsh, who stayed in the marriage for more than 12 years before her divorce in 2001, said she would have left sooner had it not been for her responsibilities to the animals. ''It's kind of hard to pack up a whole barn full of animals,'' she said. ''And I knew that any animal I left behind would be dead in 24 hours.''

The law was an outgrowth of a seminar by the Maine State Bar Association in June on the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, said Anne Jordan, a Portland lawyer who serves on the Animal Welfare Advisory Council. During an informal discussion after the presentation, a judge raised the idea of expanding the scope of protection orders, Jordan recalled. Legislative support was overwhelming, said the bill's sponsor, Rep. John Piotti, a Democrat. He and others cited a study that found that 71 percent of pet-owning women in a Utah shelter said their abusers had either harmed, killed or threatened their pets.

Although Maine's law is unique, other states have statutes that reflect the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. Laws in California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio and Tennessee encourage cross-reporting among agencies involved in law enforcement, domestic violence, child protection and animal control, Perry said.

Animal welfare agents already have been looking at ways to help potentially endangered pets whose owners are in abusive situations. ''A growing trend is called safe havens. These are cooperative agreements between shelters for women and shelters for animals,'' Perry said. Several agencies in Maine participate in a program called PAWS -- Pets and Women to Safety -- that arranges confidential placement of animals in foster care so their owners can move into a shelter knowing that their pets will be safe. The Animal Welfare Society in Kennebunk has a PAWS program that works with Caring Unlimited. ''They've worked with all kinds of pets and farm animals,'' Peoples said, ''from cats and dogs to horses and exotic birds.''

Via the New York Times. (Registration required)

Divorce secrecy vote is imminent

Lawmakers are poised to vote on a bill that would allow financial information in divorce proceedings to be kept secret, legislation that opponents say is tailored to help Ron Burkle, a Los Angeles billionaire and political contributor who has fought to keep information about his divorce under wraps.

Burkle and the bill's author say the measure has nothing to do with the high-profile split but is intended to help prevent identity theft and protect sensitive financial information. Opponents -- who include First Amendment advocates, judges and Burkle's ex-wife -- say the bill is unconstitutional and mirrors what Burkle seeks in court: to keep his assets secret.

The fight over the bill centers around how much the public needs to know. The bill's author argues that getting a divorce should not involve full disclosure of financial information, which could lead to identity theft. Opponents say that courts are public forums and that closing access to records is the equivalent of slamming the courthouse door shut. Murray's bill, which is supported by the Family Law Section of the State Bar Association, requires judges to redact financial assets, liabilities and income or expenses in a divorce if one party requests it.

The bill, which is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, also allows privately paid judges, such as the one hearing the Burkle case, to seal documents -- a right they do not have now. "Supposedly the bill is not for Mr. Burkle, but it's an awfully big coincidence this bill has exactly what Burkle is trying to achieve in court," said Susan Seager, a lawyer who challenged the sealing of Burkle's divorce pleadings after an earlier bill similar to Murray's SB 1015 became law in 2004. That law was declared unconstitutional in February by an appellate court. Burkle has appealed, and his divorce filings remain under seal.

Burkle and his wife of 28 years, Janet, divorced in 1997. Three years ago, she sued, challenging the size of the alimony payments she receives. Burkle quickly sought to seal parts of the court documents, arguing in part that details about his wealth might lead to identity theft or make his son a target for kidnapping. The privately paid judge handling the case redacted account numbers, addresses and some family photographs but left Burkle's asset information public in April 2004.

Within three weeks of that ruling, then Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, a friend of Burkle's, amended a bill to allow Burkle to keep his assets secret. The bill was hustled through the Legislature in less than a month and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 7.

Citing the new law, which took effect immediately, Burkle asked the court to seal information about his assets in the divorce case. Seager, representing the Los Angeles Times and Associated Press, challenged the move, and a superior court judge struck down the new law as unconstitutional. An appellate court in February backed up the lower court ruling, but Burkle has petitioned the state Supreme Court for a hearing. Janet Burkle's lawyer, Hillel Chodos, has asked Murray to withdraw his bill.

"It may advance Ronald's litigation strategies and tactics and help him to overturn or circumvent an adverse decision by the court of appeal in his marital litigation, but it is not in the public interest," wrote Chodos. Both the Judicial Council of California and the California Judges Association object to the measure. The judges say having to redact personal information would be a "tremendous burden" on courts. Like the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the judicial council argues that court proceedings and documents should be open to the public.

Even the judiciary committee's analysis of the bill says that without changes, the measure is unconstitutional. Murray rejects that interpretation and says his bill has been tailored to meet the appellate court ruling that struck down the 2004 bill.

From the San Francisco Chronicle.

Divorce bill pulled off committee calendar

A hearing on a bill that would require a judge to redact a couple's financial information from divorce court records was postponed Tuesday by the author.

Aides to the Assembly Judiciary Committee said Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, requested that the bill be removed from the committee's agenda. A new hearing date hasn't been set.

Supporters say the legislation would protect privacy and prevent identity theft, but opponents see it as a threat to open courts. Under Murray's bill, the financial information would have to be edited out of the records if one of the spouses requested it.

From the Ventura County Star.

Financial records redaction bill gets a hearing today and newspapers are against it

SB1015 will come before the Assembly Judiciary Committee today for a hearing.

As you may remember from my previous post , the bill concerns what financial records can be disclosed for public inspection in divorce or legal separation cases. In the Assembly summary's language, the bill says that a family court "shall order redacted" from public review "the parties' financial assets, liabilities, income or expenses" and addresses of residences.

It should come as no surprise that newspapers around California are against the bill's passage. For example, the Orange County Register  has an editorial in today's edition against SB1015.

Newspapers want access to the financial records of newsworthy individuals who may be in the middle of a divorce. It is just one reason that wealthy individuals and celebrities are opting for private divorces.

The Daily Breeze takes a look at the controversy.