The politicalization of domestic violence legislation can make anyone feel a little jaded about such a serious and pervasive issue. Fortunately, there are people who have not forgotten that domestic violence is still a societal ill, and who have dedicated their lives to actually helping victims of domestic violence. These individuals have created innovative methods of breaking the cycle of violence.

In recognizing these heroes, I'm not referring to those in Sacramento who churn out new laws like funnel cakes at the state fair. Most of these laws, passed by self-serving politicians, do nothing for victims of domestic violence, as they are redundant and often unenforceable. Nevertheless, these laws continue to pass because no one has the courage to call them what they really are; cheap badges of honor for politicians whose campaign M.O. is to be "tough on crime."

As a family law attorney, however, I have not lost sight of the fact that domestic violence still needs to be fought, as it is committed every minute of every day in this country. I also recognize that domestic violence victims need, more than anything, people who will protect them and assist them in getting out of dysfunctional relationships.

As Chairman of the Pasadena Bar Association, Family Law Section, I wanted to honor "Domestic Violence Awareness" month and recognize the real heroes in the fight against domestic violence. The goal was also to educate my section members of all of the great things that are being done on behalf of victims.

I invited guest speakers to our section meeting who are actually involved in the day-to-day effort to help domestic violence victims. The first speaker we were fortunate to hear from was Sara Rondon. Sara is the coordinator of the Domestic Violence Project, which is located on the first floor of the Pasadena Courthouse. The Domestic Violence Project is a program created and sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Sara and her small staff are in the trenches every day assisting victims in preparing the requisite paperwork to obtain restraining orders. As you can imagine, they see the worst types of cases. Most victims do not understand the legal process and cannot afford legal representation. Thus, without the assistance of Sara and the Domestic Violence Project, these victims would be unable to proceed effectively through the legal process.

Although Sara's staff is quite small, there are a number of paralegals and attorneys who volunteer their time to work with the victims (during the past year one of the paralegals from my office served as a volunteer, which is how I came to meet Sara). An interesting point that Sara made during her presentation, is that studies show that the issuance of restraining orders significantly curtails repeat offenses. It would seem, consequently, that Sara's work is having a meaningful impact against domestic violence.

The second speaker at our section meeting was Trish Steele, who is the founder of "Safe Passage," a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting domestic violence victims. Trish's approach to rescuing domestic violence victims is very innovative, and it goes further than providing temporary shelter. Safe Passages has found a method to get victims back on their feet by giving them a complete "makeover." For example, Trish has recruited numerous doctors and dentists to volunteer their time to perform cosmetic surgery on the many victims who have suffered injuries to the facial area. With a little help from Trish's volunteers, these individuals are able to re-boost their confidence so that they can go out and market themselves for work.

As Trish points out, victims of domestic violence are frequently caught in a cycle of violence because they are financially unable to "get out" of their current circumstances. For this reason, Trish's approach addresses the physical, emotional as well as the financial aspects of rebuilding one's life after leaving an abusive relationship. Trish is constantly looking for professionals willing to volunteer their time and donate resources to victims of domestic violence.

As you can see, eliminating domestic violence requires the work of special people, who are the real heroes in the fight against domestic violence.

Written by: Donald P. Schweitzer

I'm about to tell you something that will make no sense: getting remarried after a divorce may result in a situation where you can lower your child support obligation after the court takes into consideration your new spouse's income. Before you call me crazy, please give me a chance to explain . . . .

When a Family court calculates child support in California it has broad discretion in detemining what constitutes a parties' "income." Trial courts have been upheld in imputing income to parties in a variety of situations. For example, trial courts have been upheld after imputing income to a party based on a reasonable return on his or her investments. However, there is one type of income that the California Family Code expressly prohibits judges from considering, and that is a parties' "new mate income," except in very limited circumstances.

Family Code Section 4057.5(a) provides:

The income of the obligor parent's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court shall also consider whether including that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligor or by the obligor's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner. (Emphasis added.)

In a recent published opinion, entitled, "In Re Marriage of Knowles," the Court of Appeal added to this rule, by holding that the trial court violated the Family Code when it considered half of the community income attributable to the subsequent spouse when it modified the father's child support obligation.

In this case, Elizabeth and Thomas Knowles divorced and in 1995 Thomas was ordered to pay a paltry $506 per month in support of their son - Carter. On January 6, 2005, Elizabeth filed a motion to increase Thomas' child support obligation. During the proceedings, Elizabeth asked the Court to consider as income, certain capital gains that Thomas and his new spouse (Sara) enjoyed as a result of investments they made after their marriage. The capital gains that Thomas and Sara enjoyed were more than 3.1 million. Much of these gains were invested in a brokerage account and a real estate development.

Although the brokerage account and the real estate development investments were community property of Thomas and Sara, the trial court considered the full amount in determining the reasonable return on those investments. In other words, the trial court did not reduce the value of the investments by 50 percent as a result of Sara's half ownership.

In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeal recited the basic concept of community property law: "Income generated from community property is community income, and an equal, undivided interest in that income is attributable to each spouse." Thus, according the Court of Appeal, the trial court erred by including Sara's half of the community income when calculating Thomas' child support obligation.

In light of this decision, we can see how an obligor of child support may benefit when he invests his money with his new spouse. There are also situations where the inclusion of a new spouse's income in the calucation of child support reduces the obligation. This happens when the parties file jointly and the tax consequences reduces the child support obligor's net disposable income available for support.

However, I would not suggest you run off to get re-married based on this article. There are, after all, some things that money cannot buy, like peace of mind and a stable relationship.

Written by: Donald P. Schweitzer

The mother of Akon's child has been trying (and failing) to serve him with legal papers over child support -- so now she's gonna call him out in the L.A. Times.

The lawyer, [Patrick Baghdaserians] for [name omitted] tells us they will be taking out an ad in Monday's L.A. Times to serve Akon publicly. If he doesn't respond, they will pursue a default judgment.

But we caught up with Akon in NY -- and it's all news to him. As he told our guy, "You got a hold of me and you ain't even trying. I'm a celebrity. My schedule is on the internet. You can go on my MySpace, it'll tell you where I'm at!"

Source: TMZ

Last week I concluded a seven day jury trial involving allegations that my client committed domestic violence against his ex wife. Fortunately for my client, it took the jury less than an hour to find my client not guilty.

Prior to going to trial I attempted to convince the Deputy District Attorney that he should not proceed with the case, since the only corroborating evidence he had was the supposed statement that the parties' seven year old son gave to the police. The ex wife had taken their seven year old son to the police station about two hours after the incident to make a police report.

When I explained to the prosecutor that the child was an unreliable witness due to the child's age, the prior inconsistent statements he made to our investigator, and because of the fact he was not in a position to have witnessed the incident, the prosecutor dryly replied that he was still going forward with the case because he had interviewed the child and believed his story.

Small children do not make very good witnesses for a variety of factors, and they should be called to the stand only when it is absolutely necessary. In the seventeen years that I have practiced law, I have only seen small children called to the stand on a couple of occasions.

Not only do small children generally make poor witnesses, but the emotional impact of calling a child to the stand has to be great. In this case, the little boy was called to testify against his father in a rather minor incident. I can only imagine the strain this experience will have on their relationship and the feelings of guilt the poor child will feel for the rest of his life for taking the stand.

Once again I am reminded that exercising one's discretion not to proceed with a "domestic violence" case has to be allowed within our system of justice. Written by: Donald P. Schweitzer