Orange County Divorce Lawyer Blog

Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin has filed a California divorce petition in Los Angeles, seeking to end his marriage to Lois Cannon, according to MSNBC.

Aldrin, the second human to set foot on the moon, is 81. He and Cannon have been married for 23 years. The couple have no children, though Aldrin has three grown kids from his first marriage (Cannon is his third wife).

Though Aldrin was in the military when he was part of the space program in the 1960s, he has recently emerged as a pop culture figure beyond the world of space aficionados. The former astronaut has appeared on popular TV shows such as 30 Rock, Dancing with the Stars and WWE Raw Live, the website notes. He is also an author and has been involved in efforts to promote commercial spaceflight. All of this presumably makes for a marital estate far larger than that of most military retirees.

MSNBC does not say whether or not Aldrin and Cannon have a California prenuptial agreement in place. Presumably the bulk of their assets - including the substantial paychecks Aldrin would have drawn on a program like Dancing With the Stars - will now be subject to the state's community property laws.

Untangling situations such can be difficult. Doing so can be especially difficult without the assistance of an Orange County divorce lawyer. We have here a couple in which the main breadwinner has been married before - and may still be liable for payments related to those earlier marriages - but where a significant portion of the assets from a long marriage were probably acquired relatively recently. Assessing these sort of complexities is one of the most important services an experienced Santa Ana, Costa Mesa or Anaheim family law attorney can offer.

MSNBC: Buzz Aldrin breaks up with third wife

Last spring I wrote about an obscure tax provision known as the "Innocent Spouse Rule" and the potential effect it can have on an Orange County divorce settlement. Needless to say, that is far from the only tax issue that can arise when one is contemplating a divorce. Recently, the Wall Street Journal's Smart Money column offered some useful pointers on major (and, in most cases, more common) issues that also bear consideration.

While state law governs many aspects of divorce - such as the community property rules that apply here in California - many of the tax implications of a Los Angeles or Orange County divorce are ultimately federal in nature.

As the Journal outlines, a key tax aspect of divorce involves what are known as Tax-Free Transfer Rules. "The general rule is that you can divide up most assets... without any federal income or gift tax consequences," the paper notes. If such transfers take place after the divorce becomes final, however, it is important that they be written into the settlement. If, for example, the settlement gives ownership of the house to one spouse but gives the other a share of any future sale price, that cash would come to the second spouse tax-free because the sale was made "pursuant to your divorce or separation agreement." Similar, though often more complex, rules lay out specific treatment for stocks and bonds and for any capital gains realized from them.

The article warns, however, that tax advantaged retirement accounts (such as a 401K or 403B) are a very different matter. "You must jump through some hoops to get tax-free treatment if you transfer all or part of your account balances to your ex in divorce," the article states. It also warns that IRAs are subject to yet another separate set of rules.

The lesson here is that a divorce's complexities do not end with a basic agreement on the division of assets. An Orange County divorce attorney can help advise you on these complex situations - including letting you over whether your financial affairs are sufficiently complex that an accountant or other tax professional ought to become involved in the discussions.

Wall Street Journal/SmartMoney: What Divorce Means For Your Taxes

A one-sentence ruling earlier this month by the United States Supreme Court dealt a blow to California father's rights by letting unequal citizenship standards for fathers and mothers stand.

According to an account in the New York Times, the case - Flores-Villar v United States - concerns a father seeking to pass his US citizenship on to his foreign-born son. As the Times outlines: "children born outside the country to an unmarried American parent are considered American citizens at birth if the parent lived in the United States before the child was born. For a mother, the required period of residence is one year. For a father, it is 10 years, five of them after he turns 14."

This blatantly unfair standard was upheld here in California by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Earlier this month the US Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in an unsigned, one-sentence opinion. The statement noted that the court was divided equally, 4-4, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself (presumably because she was involved in earlier stages of the litigation during her previous job as US Solicitor General).

The case will directly impact the boy at its center. As the Times notes, Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico to an American father and a Mexican mother. His father has been raising him in San Diego. The father, however, was 16 at the time of Ruben's birth, making it mathematically impossible for him to have met the five-years-residence-after-age-14 standard, though putting him well within the standard applied to mothers.

As the paper notes, this particular conception of citizenship is built around "outmoded principles when it comes to married couples." The Appeals Court here in California had denied Ruben US citizenship because, it said, the father-child bond "is not so easily established" as that with mothers. As an Orange County father's rights lawyer it is difficult not to acknowledge that this ruling will create problems for more than a few families in our community. As the Times aptly notes: "the days when fathers were assumed to be minor players in parenting are long over." California fathers need to know that we will always be here to help them fight for their rights.

New York Times: The Supreme Court Disses Fathers

Diandra Douglas suffered another legal setback this month in her effort to claim a share of ex-husband Michael's earnings from the film Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. When last we left Diandra and the legal system, her attorneys were arguing before a New York court that Michael Douglas' earnings from the sequel to his Oscar-winning performance in 1987's Wall Street are subject to California's community property laws, despite the couple having been divorced for more than a decade.

According to the celebrity-watching website Monsters and Critics, however, a Manhattan judge "rejected her request to overturn his original ruling (of) last year." In doing so he reaffirmed his original opinion that if Diandra's case is to be heard at all it should be in California, where the couple's divorce was finalized back in 2000. The website quotes Diandra's attorneys vowing to appeal the decision.

As I noted when originally discussing this case last year, Diandra's claim does not amount to a demand for a California post-settlement modification. It turns instead on an essentially philosophical question: what, artistically speaking, is the relationship of a sequel to its original? The original Wall Street film was made during the Douglas' marriage. Therefore, under California's community property laws, Diandra is entitled to a piece of any ongoing income Michael makes from the film: residuals and royalties, for example.

The question is whether a sequel is a new and distinct work of art or whether it is, artistically speaking, a continuation of the original. If the former, then the new film is a piece of post-divorce Michael Douglas work and, therefore, not subject to community property rules. If, however, it is the latter (similar, say, to re-issuing the original film on Blue-Ray, a technology that did not exist in 1987) then the income would be subject to community property rules. It is a fascinating legal question - but one which this case has not resolved, since the New York court, in effect, punted the issue back to California without addressing the substance of Diandra's claim.

Viewed another way, the case is a reminder of an important role Los Angeles and Orange County divorce lawyers fill for clients. As legal experts, family law specialists can offer clients invaluable assistance in understanding the often arcane world of the law. Deciding on one's approach is one of the most important decisions anyone makes when beginning a legal process. It is also the place where experienced legal advice is most valuable.

Monsters and Critics: Diandra Douglas loses appeal to get ex-husband Michael's money

The internet is a buzz over the news that Hugh Hefner and fiance, Crystal Harris, called off their wedding. Reports claim that Harris did not like Hefner's playboy lifestyle. Harris was quoted as stating "[t]his isn't the lifestyle for me, multiple girls around all the time, the Playboy lifestyle. I don't know. I just wanted to be true to myself." (Hello! You have been a playboy playmate for how long?) I'm not sure if that's just an excuse of if she only wanted to marry Hefner for fame, status and to further her music career.

At any rate, its a good thing these two decided to break it off before tying the knot. As we all know, once you get married, the divorce process is a much more stressful and emotional on every level for both parties. There are a lot of issues that could have arisen had these two gotten married and decided to divorce months or even years later. For one, unless the parties had a prenuptual agreement in place to protect their assets (separte property and community property), Hefner could face potential spousal support payments to Harris.

Secondly, if these two would have had minor children in the future, child custody and visitation issues along with child support issues would have to be dealt with.

Finally, unless a prenuptual agreement is written up, these two would have to deal with the division of community property issues.

From an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective, all these divorce issues are moot as Hefner and Harris broke their relationship off before getting married.

This is why contacting an Orange County divorce lawyer is imperative to handling your divorce. You want to make sure all issues are dealt with in your favor and reasonably.

Souce: Hugh Hefner, Crystall Harris's Wedding is called off

Crystal Harris blames Hugh Hefner's Playboy lifestyle as reason for calling off the couple's wedding

The recent revelation that former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a member of his household staff was a shock for many. But, as a recent article at the Huffington Post points out, it also provides an opportunity for all of us to revisit some of the more complex Los Angeles and Orange County father's rights issues that can emerge in the wake of an out-of-wedlock birth.

As the website notes, many children are born in similar (though not nearly as famous) circumstances every year. "Not surprisingly, many of these cases end up in court when the parents are at odds about custody, child support and other matters," the site adds.

The piece notes that mothers of children born out-of-wedlock have full custody of their babies in nearly every state pending the establishment of paternity. In most cases, this puts the onus on the father to assert his California paternity rights, usually by going to California family court. Fathers are also, of course, obliged to support their children, generally until they turn 18.

Negotiating the details of agreements concerning paternity, custody and visitation and child support can be complex and, in many cases, contentious. That is why it is essential for any father facing such a situation to have access to the skilled legal advice that an experienced California father's rights lawyer can offer. Clients need to know that their concerns will be taken seriously, and their interests represented in a compassionate, detail-oriented manner.

Fathers have rights and obligations, but their ability to build a strong, enduring relationship with a son or daughter should never become hostage to any conflict with the child's mother. Ensuring that your rights are protected is an Orange County family law attorney's first job.

Huffington Post: If a child is born out of wedlock... is Dad out of luck?

In honor of Father's Day this Sunday, here is a blast from the past blog post from a vindicated father who was able to get his Temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order Sealed by the Orange County Superior Court.

A letter to Fathers and Families by an Anonymous Client/Vindicated Father
"THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY FOR FATHER'S RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF FALSIFIED
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS.

Gentlemen,

A significant event occurred today in the Orange County California
Superior Court, Lamoreaux Justice Center in Department 64, Judge
Ronald P. Kreber.

I was successful in getting all records, physical and electronic of
the falsified Temporary Restraining Order issued against me on
September 9, 2009 sealed by the order of the court.

I have been tirelessly working at and documenting the FACTS which led
up to the falsified Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order
being issued against me on September 9, 2009. My current family law
attorney, Mr. David Schwarz has been relentless but extremely
diplomatic and patient, with my now ex-wife's attorney in getting my
wife's attorney to actually draft the stipulation and order, that was
signed by everybody and signed by the judge.

My attorney, Mr. David P. Schwarz listened to my concerns, stayed with
this issue, and I wrote what seemed to be a million pages of
Declarations, but the final result is that Mr. Schwarz was able to do
what I do not believe has occurred in the State of California thus
far.

Even though Mr. Schwarz did not really have the case law, the codified
sections or the points and authorities to pull this off, he did it
anyway through determination, and having to put up with me as a client
who was screaming and yelling all the time.

For the issue of Father's Rights, the issue of combating the gross
misuse and abuse of the Temporary Restraining Order Process, this is a
significant case. Since Father's & Families has been combating the
abuse of the Restraining Order process for a long time, this case may
provide fuel for other cases and legislative change.

I hope this information helps the cause of Father's Families, and I
think we need to consider the determination of my legal counsel,
Attorney David Schwarz, in correcting a wrong, and hopefully all can
benefit from this decision.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, and I am sure that
you will see this case on Mr. Schwarz's Blog, but it is a HUGE step
helping those falsely accused of domestic violence. Of course the
next issue that I will have to deal with is the year's long battle to
re-connect with my children after this huge crisis and the mountain of
parental alienation that I have had to deal with and will continue to
deal with.

From a now happily divorced and vindicated man, but still saddened
from the abuse of my children that this has caused. I hope this helps
the cause of Father's & Families, and I hope that other men falsely
accused of domestic violence resulting in the issuance of temporary
restraining orders, can realize that if the circumstances are present,
and with a little ingenuity can get these things off their records.
Now we have to put in place the laws and the point and authorities to
make these routine.

The bottom line here is that my now ex-wife and her attorney had
finally come to the realization that the facts leading up and
surrounding the issuance of the temporary restraining order issued
against me, were false, they knew they were false, and they knew that
I and my attorney Mr. Schwarz were just not going to give up at
bringing the truth of this situation to the attention of the court.
If my ex-wife and her attorney would have continued with this shrill;
at some point and time she would have risked the possibility of
perjured testimony and possible arrest, so it was better to agree to
the stipulation.

For all of those falsely accused Dads out there, let's use this
example for everybody's benefit.

Thanks."

If you need assistance on an Orange County or Los Angeles domestic violence restraining order, please contact an Orange County divorce attorney for assistance.

No, John Edwards, the people here in Orange County, California have not forgotten about you. All the drama surrounding Representative Weiner is not going to cloud your recent indictment on charges that you failed to report nearly $1 million allegedly spent to keep your mistress out of the public eye as you pursued the presidency.

In all seriousness, it now seems like the John Edwards story is getting juicier. Now, reports are surfacing that prosecutors have now obtained emails between John Edwards and a former aide to use as evidence at trial proving that Edwards knew about the payments to his pregnant mistress, even while he was publicly denying it, people familiar with the case told The Associated Press on Monday, June 6.

Apparently, there were dozens of emails that were exchanged between Edwards and his former speechwriter, Wendy Button, as they worked on a never-released draft statement to acknowledge paternity of his out-of-wedlock child, according to people who have seen the messages and requested anonymity because they have not been made public yet.

Prosecutors must prove that Edwards had knowledge of the payments in order to convict him in the case. Edwards proclaimed his innocence of any crime after being indicted last Friday.

The six felony charges came after intense negotiations in which prosecutors first insisted Edwards plead to a felony, but they ultimately offered him the chance to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and serve a jail sentence, according to people with knowledge of the talks who requested anonymity to discuss the private discussions.

Edwards, a single father since his estranged wife's death in December, was interested in reaching a deal but refused to accept anything that would take him away from his children, according to a person close to the talks.

Hypothetically from an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective and in the event Elizabeth Edwards was still alive and if she and John Edwards were both going through an Orange County, California divorce, this indictment could also have a significant effect on their divorce. Elizabeth could allege misappropriation of community property funds and breach of fiduciary duty. But that is neither here nor there since the scenario is moot given Elizabeth Edwards' death this past December 2010.

If you have any divorce related issues in Los Angeles County or Orange County, contact a reputable Orange County divorce attorney for more information.

Source: AP Sources: Edwards e-mails acknowledge payments

Whether you are going through a divorce in Orange County or Los Angeles County, divorce has a dramatic effect on children in many ways. Children of divorce often suffer from emotional stress, low self-esteem, sadness, loneliness and anxiety. A new study now shows that children going through a divorce also suffer from low math scores and lack of interpersonal skills.

In fact, the study reveals that "[c]hildren do not fall behind their peers in these areas during the potentially disruptive period before their parents divorce, the study revealed. Instead, it's after the split that kids seem to have the most trouble coping."

The study also states that from the divorce onward, children lag behind in math scores. Said children also "...show enhanced risk of internalizing problem behaviors characterized by anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem and sadness."

With respect to the math findings, in the research performed by Hyun Sik Kim, he analyzed data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study on 3,600 children who entered kindergarten in 2008. In said study, the children were tracked through fifth grade. Over that time, Kim compared children whose parents had gotten divorced while the child was in the first, second or third grade with the children of intact marriages.

Among the divorce group, Kim examined child development over three phases: the "pre-divorce" period from kindergarten to the 1st grade; the "divorce period" from 1st through 3rd grade; and the "post-divorce" period from 3rd through 5th grade.

Kim found that while a divorce is in progress, first, second and third-graders experience a dip in math test scores -- interestingly, a decline that holds steady once the divorce is final. Interpersonal skills also suffer during divorce, affecting a child's ability to make and keep friends, and the ability to express feelings and opinions in a positive way.

Additionally, what is interesting to note is that the article states that children of divorce "...may be stressed by an ongoing parental blame game or child custody conflicts. This stress could be compounded by the loss of stability when a child is shuttled between separate households or has to move to another region altogether, thus losing contact with his or her original network of friends." Indeed, from an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective, this all correlates to what is in the best interest of the children. As an example, if the children have lived in the same residence since a very early age, they will obviously be accustomed to the area they live in and their network of friends and family. This provides the children with stability and security.

Of course, life changing events such as divorce can have a significant effect on one's well-being, whether it be the children of divorce or the parents themselves.

For more information on obtaining a Los Angeles County or Orange County divorce, contact an Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: Divorce can hurt kids' math scores, friendships

The seemingly endless, and endlessly acrimonious, California divorce of Frank and Jamie McCourt is due back in Los Angeles family court later this month. According to Bloomberg News, a judge has scheduled the couple's latest hearing to consider Jamie's request that Frank be forced to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers immediately "so they can divide the proceeds." The agency reports that the judge "will at the same hearing consider an earlier request by Jamie McCourt for information about the Dodgers' business."

Frank, in turn, is asking the judge to rule that Jamie has no right to be involved in the media rights deal he is reportedly close to completing with Fox Entertainment.

And so it goes. Legally-speaking the couple have been divorced for some time, but a lengthy fight over a post-nuptial agreement (the court eventually ruled in Jamie's favor - throwing the agreement out) as well as deep differences over the future of the baseball team have prevented them from reaching a final settlement.

Indeed, according to Bloomberg, the fate of the Dodgers has again taken center-stage in this long-running Los Angeles divorce case. Earlier this year Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig took control of the team's business affairs. Jamie is reportedly asking the court to order Frank to go ahead with a sale to be arranged by the McCourts as a couple, on the grounds that any other resolution is likely to fetch a lower price and, therefore, is not "in the best interests of the club or the marital estate." That claim by Jamie highlights an important aspect of California family law that any Orange County divorce lawyer should make clients aware of: spouses should do nothing to damage community assets during the negotiation of their settlement. Doing do can only create greater legal difficulties down the road.

As an Orange County divorce attorney, this case has been fascinating to watch. In some ways it has come to embody almost everything that most family law attorneys counsel their clients to avoid. Of course, few divorces are perfectly smooth, but skilled, caring legal advice can go a long way toward ensuring that they are no more drawn-out, and no more acrimonious, than they need to be.

Bloomberg: Judge sets June 22 hearing for Jamie McCourt's request for Dodgers sale

Real Housewife of Orange County, Vicki Gunvalson, is opening up about her divorce with her husband, Donn Gunvalson. In an interview, Vicki states that she is open to reconciliation despite the fact that she filed for divorce back in October of last year. In fact, she tells E Online: "I hurt Donn a lot by exposing all of the things that I did. . . I want the best for Donn. If I'm it, then we'll stay together. If I'm not it, then we won't."

When asked about the current status of her relationship with Donn, Vicki stated that they were cordial and that they are involved in mediation.

Despite all this talk about potential reconciliation, it is unknown what Donn feels. Regardless, the couple put the former family residence for sale on the market earlier this year. The home remains on the market today as the price was just slashed $200,000 a few days ago. The new asking price on the 5-bedroom, 5.25-bath, 5,400 square feet home is now $2,495,000. Pictures of the gorgeous mansion is posted here.

The fate of the Gunvalsons remains to be seen. If the proceed with their divorce, hopefully, it will work out for them in the long run and that they work towards a reasonable divorce settlement.

At any rate, if you are contemplating an Orange County or Los Angeles County divorce, consult a reputable Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: Vicki Gunvalson Open To Reconciliation With Donn, Says "I Hurt Donn A Lot"

There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that the difficult economy of the last few years has led to a rise in requests for post-settlement modifications in Orange County, elsewhere in California and nationwide. Last week the New York Times ran a modification story with a twist: it is linked to the Bernie Madoff scandal.

Bernard Madoff's historically huge ponzi scheme has, of course, left an extraordinary number of high-profile victims in its wake, from Hollywood stars to local charities and the New York Mets. The sheer size and duration of his fraud has guaranteed that it will make its way back into the news again and again for many years to come.

According to the Times, the basics of the Madoff-prompted modification case are these: when Steven Simpkin and his wife Laura Blank divorced in 2006 "they agreed to split their considerable wealth equally." In dividing up their assets, valuing cash versus real property, Simpkin kept, among other things, the couple's account with Madoff (this may partly have been a matter of convenience as, the paper notes, it was held in his name). After Madoff's fraud was exposed - and accounts held with him became worthless - in late 2008 Simpkin filed suit demanding that his ex-wife "turn over millions of dollars that she had received in their settlement to make up for the substantial losses he had sustained in the fraud." Needless to say, Blank sees the situation differently, and the Times reports that the case is attracting considerable attention nationwide. As the paper notes, the court ruling will only, strictly speaking, impact New York's divorce laws, "but a decision by the influential (NY Court of Appeals) could influence how judges interpret laws in other states.

One might argue that Simpkin's investment account dropping to zero is not Brand's problem. Presumably if the family home she got in the settlement lost value when the real estate bubble burst she could not seek to get money back from him. But, as the paper notes, the issue is not necessarily that clear cut. The Madoff account was fraudulent from Day One, though neither spouse knew that at the time. With that in mind Simpkin is demanding a modification under a doctrine known as "mutual mistake." The idea is that since both spouses were honestly mistaken when they valued the account the settlement should be retroactively rebalanced. For her part, Blank is arguing, in effect, that enough time elapsed between the settlement and the exposure of Madoff's fraud that the doctrine should not apply, especially since her ex-husband continued to add to his Madoff account for many months after the settlement.

From the perspective of an Orange County divorce lawyer it is undeniable that this case is worth watching closely. Divorce law is, of course, governed by states and California is different from New York in a number of key respects (notably, by being a community property state). But the potential for an important precedent remains.

The New York Times: Madoff Victim Seeks a Divorce Do-Over

Another day, another child custody issue involving Kelsey and Camille Grammer. It now turns out that Kelsey Grammer is fighting for primary physical custody of the parties son, Jude. Kelsey is willing to give Camille primary physical custody of the parties daughter, Mason. Additionally, based on the letter posted on TMZ, Kelsey wants to enroll his son in classes in Chicago.

From an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective, its not favorable to separate the children. It is just not in their best interest.

Additionally, in another legal pleading posted on TMZ's website, Camille is alleging that Kelsey is requesting custody of his son in bad faith and in order to garner attention from the media. It is also interesting to note that Jude has repeated Kindergarten twice and in order to get into first grade, Jude will have to complete a Summer math program in Los Angeles. Despite all these claims being thrown, it looks like Kelsey and Camille are going to seek assistance from a child custody evaluator to determine an appropriate parenting plan for the kids.

In heated child custody battles such as those involving the Grammers, most parties will seek the assistance of an Evidence Code section 730 child custody evaluator. As I stated above, if the parties cannot come to an agreement for an appropriate parenting plan, the child custody evaluator will be able to determine an appropriate parenting plan that is in the children's best interest.

This is why hiring an Orange County child custody lawyer is most helpful in contentious custody situations.

Source: Camille Grammer wants custody of kids

An Orange County appellate court last week dismissed a case involving the girl known as Baby Vanessa, clearing the way for the Orange County child custody case to be finally closed, according to City News Service. As I have documented numerous times over the last year, the child was born in Ohio and given up by her birth mother to a Santa Ana woman, Stacey Doss, in an adoption arranged during the birth mother's pregnancy.

It later emerged that the birth mother had lied when she claimed not to know who the father was. The biological father, in fact, had other children with the birth mother, his estranged girlfriend. He, however, had in turn given up custody rights to the other kids, who were being raised by his mother. The grandmother also filed a custody claim in what became a complex multi-sided two state child custody dispute.

Doss was awarded custody in March after she reached a settlement agreement with the biological father and grandmother. That settlement will allow the biological father, who has a history of domestic violence claims being filed against him, to visit Vanessa in limited circumstances and only when accompanied by the girl's grandmother. A day before the California court ruling the father pled no contest in an Ohio court to three "felony counts of theft," City News Service reports.

According to City News Service "the appellate court's dismissal was essentially a formality because of the settlement agreement. However, it was necessary so Ohio officials can sign off on the agreement granting custody" to Doss.

As an Orange County family law attorney one can only say that there is some relief to be had in what appears to be the end of this protracted, and at times emotional, Orange County child custody dispute. Whether the arrangements worked out by Doss with the Ohio family will work and will benefit Vanessa herself, only time will tell.

City News Service via Rancho Santa Margarita Patch: OC Court Clears Way for Doss to Keep Baby Vanessa

Being a Catholic country, currently, it is illegal to divorce in the Philippines. However, a new study shows that more and more Filipinos are favoring the legalization of divorce in their country. Indeed, fifty percent of 1,200 people surveyed favored legalizing divorce.

Additionally, there was also a consistent rise in support for legal divorce, according to a SWS survey. In Metro Manila alone, the survey stated that the support for legal divorce switched from neutral to favorable as it increased from 44 percent last May 2005 to 52 percent this year.

Support for legal divorce in Luzon rose from 51% to 54% while those from Visayas also hiked support ratings as the percentage of those who agreed to making divorce legal rose from 32% to 50%.

For supporters living in Mindanao, the percent of legal divorce supporters also increased from 36% to 44%.

These findings are significant in the Catholic country of the Philippines. Being born in Manila myself, I know a few close relatives who have been separated for many, many years but have not divorced simply because it is illegal to and not offered in the Philippines. In one case, the Husband has even found additional mistresses and wives in other countries. Despite the forgoing, said Husband continues to financially support his Wife, who resides in the Philippines. In situations like these and from an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective, it would just be better to divorce someone who you see no future with so each person can move on with their life.

For more information on divorce in Orange County or Los Angeles County, California, contact an Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: More Filipinos favor legalization of divorce-- SWS

Given all the recent media attention surrounding the recent Schwarzenneger/Shriver split, another wrench has been thrown into the mix. Did Arnold Schwarzenneger use tax payers' money to cover up his many affairs?

According to this article, a criminal investigation has been initiated to determine the validity of the claims. A veteren law enforcement officer, William Taylor, allegedly made said claims to the National Enquirer. Taylor states that Schwarzenneger "...used California Highway Patrol officers and vehicles to drive young, scantily-clad women to the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Sacramento on a regular basis."

He also claims that "...much of the hotel and the governor's staff knew what was going on but that they were all too scared to speak out or do anything about it as Schwarzenegger had intimidated staff so much that they weren't even allowed to make eye contact with him."

What is also interesting is that Schwarzenneger gave Mildred Baena, the housekeeper who worked for the family and eventually had a "love child" with Arnold a $65,000 down payment on Baena's family home in Bakersfield, California, to secure a roof over his son's head. From an Orange County divorce lawyer's perspective, the question raises concerns as to if said $65,000 was a misappropriation of community property funds. Maria Shriver likely did not know about this contribution. We can only speculate.

At any rate, I'm sure more dirty laundry and drama will be revealed from this high profile split. It's only a matter of time. This is why hiring an Orange County divorce lawyer is important as you want to ensure that your legal rights are protected.

Contact an Orange County divorce lawyer for more information.

Source: California AG 'launches criminal investigation into claims Schwarzenegger used tax payers' money to cover up affair'