© 2016 DennisTemkoLaw.Proudly created with Wix.com

Areas I serve include: Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Sacramento, Alameda, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, Monterey, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Barbara , San Jose, Anaheim, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Glendale, Santa Rosa, Corona, Pasadena, Carlsbad, Burbank, Santa Monica, Newport Beach, Kern County

In re Marriage of Schu Summary

In re Marriage of Schu published December 6, 2016

 

 

Factual Background

 

The Court of Appeal held in In re Marriage of Schu that misconduct in the form of domestic violence was relevant to whether to award Wife spousal support.  In that case, Wife had three children with Husband.  Husband was oftentimes out of the country.  Wife started to engage in a sexual relationship with one of their children’s friends when the friend was only a child.  Wife provided alcohol for the children and contributed to a sexualized atmosphere. The sexual relationship with one of the children’s friends lasted until the child went on to college.  When the relationship was on the verge of exposure, Wife terrorized her daughter to keep the information secret.  Wife eventually pleaded no contest to seven counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to six years in prison.

 

Husband and Wife later separated and Wife requested spousal support.

 

Trial Court’s Order

 

The trial court found support was unwarranted under Family Code section 4320, subdivision (i), (m), (n), and (k).  Wife appealed. 

 

Decision on Appeal

 

On appeal, Wife argued the court improperly considered the parties’ fault when determining spousal support.  The Court of Appeal did not agree.  While dissolutions may be “no fault,” there was an element of fault in the award of spousal support.  Indeed, section 4320 provides the court shall consider domestic violence when fashioning a support award. 

 

In this case, Wife’s conduct unquestionably rose to the level of domestic violence.  Her characterizations of the events as a mere extramarital affair and refusing to engage in sex were a gross underreporting of the true nature of the events.  The Court of Appeal, rather, found Wife physically and emotionally abused her children to facilitate molesting a child.  Under the circumstances, a trial court could conclude Wife was not entitled to support. 

Contact Me

FOR A CONSULTATION

 

 

(858) 274 3538

 

Dennis Temko, Esq.

Law Office of Dennis Temko
750 "B" Street Suite 2100
San Diego CA, 92101

 

 

EMAIL

Dennis.Temko@Yahoo.com OR

Email me through this site by clicking HERE

      

Dennis Temko was recognized as a “Rising Star” in 2017 by Super Lawyers, a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

  • Wix Facebook page
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Wix Google+ page

Viewing the presentations, articles, other content, or contacting me/you through my web site does not establish an attorney client relationship. I will not file a notice of appeal nor calculate the time in which a notice of appeal must be filed by until I have received a signed retainer agreement.  Warning, the time from which to file a notice of appeal is statutory. The time in which you have to appeal may pass between when you first contact me and when an attorney client relationship is formed upon when I receive a signed retainer agreement .  Until a retainer agreement is signed and received by me, it is YOUR responsibility to insure your appeal is filed within the statutory period.  The articles on this website are not legal advice and should not be used in lieu of an attorney.  The accuracy of articles and information on this site cannot be relied upon.