Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107
Brice Erickson and Jobeth Erickson
|Hearing Date:||Tue May 13, 2014 10:30|
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: CC/Visit/Atty Fees and Costs
This dissolution action was filed on 3/27/14 by father after 8 years of marriage [date of separation 3/10/14] and one child, age 6.
On 4/22/14 father filed his RFO; set the hearing for 5/13/14; requests orders for child custody [seeks joint legal and joint physical custody]; submits a holiday schedule form FL-312C; a physical custody attachment form FL-341D, and a joint legal custody attachment form FL-341E; requests a 2/2/3 rotating child visitation order with alternating weekends; requests attorney fees ($7,500 or $15,000 if contested hearing).
Father filed his I&E; reports he earns $4,748/mo; is 43 years old; reports mother earns $12,500/mo; retirement payments of $423/mo; medical insurance payments of $366/mo; $4,500 in case; no liquid assets; other assets TBD; has paid his attorney $7,500 from a loan; provides no time share because no parenting schedule is in place; reports child attends Marymount and tuition is $20,00/yr; reports mother has liquid assets of $500,000 some of which produces income; that considerable money from motherís family has routinely contributed to her income; believes she is executor of the Seder Family Trust and is a beneficiary; she has income from administering the Trust.
Supports his requests with a brief; reports mother has drastically interfered with his ability to see the minor child since he moved out on 3/29/14 and mother has rejected all standard custodial arrangements; there has been an absence of any routine; that is harmful to the minor child; a schedule is needed; that frequent and continuing contact is necessary and appropriate; the Court should implement a visitation plan immediately and order mother to pay the fees requested forthwith.
Motherís Response to the Dissolution Action
Mother filed her response to the dissolution action on 4/25/14; agrees that the marriage should be resolved and that it was about an 8 year marriage; seeks joint legal custody and sole physical custody with child visitation be granted; reports that property rights etc be subject to an Agreement of the parties dated 3/10/06.
Motherís Response to Fatherís RFO
There is no response to fatherís RFO in the file.
On May 8 father filed a document entitled Reply; reports that the Court should order his proposed custodial requests irrespective of the fact there is no response filed; asks that the Court set a parenting plan and order attorney fees; reports that since 4/22 mother has refused all his requests to establish a custodial schedule for the minor child; contends mother is using the child as a pawn; that creates an insecure environment for the child.
On May 8 fatherís lawyer filed her declaration in support of fatherís Reply; said motherís counsel has requested that the matter be continued to May 20; among other things motherís counsel contends the RFO was filed one day late in order to have it heard on the date now set; fatherís lawyer reports there is an urgency to have the matter heard; that fatherís time with the minor child has been ignored and his parental rights will be significantly and prejudicially injured if the Court does not, at least, set a parenting plan consistent with fatherís request.
Family Court Services reported no agreement reached.
The Courtís secretary reports she has been telephonically alerted by motherís counsel that he will seek a continuance of one week at the May 13 Calendar Call.
The Court will grant a one week continuance; there is in fact no response in the file; the Court thoroughly understands fatherís distress but the Court should hear from mother before making any rulings and is entitled to read motherís Response; a one-week delay under the circumstances is justified.