Family Law News

Recent Published Family Law Court Decisions (California)

1. In re S.R. — Child Abuse Jurisdiction
A California Supreme Court decision involving a juvenile court’s jurisdiction after findings of child abuse arising from family disputes.

2. In re Ja.O. — Extended Family Inquiry Duty
Supreme Court ruled that county welfare departments must make extended-family inquiries whenever a child is placed into temporary custody, regardless of whether the removal was with or without a warrant. This affects dependency cases and how relatives are located for custody and support during shelter-care proceedings.

3. In re Marriage of Goldman
Clarified that child and spousal support orders remain enforceable indefinitely

Court’s Ruling: Support Orders Are Enforceable, But Delay Matters
California Family Code § 291(a) states that a money judgment for child, family, or spousal support remains enforceable until it is paid in full or otherwise satisfied. Unlike other types of judgments, support orders do not expire and do not need to be renewed every 10 years.
However, the court in York Goldman confirmed that the equitable defense of laches—which prevents enforcement if there was an unreasonable delay that prejudiced the debtor—can apply to certain claims in divorce judgments. While laches does not apply to child or spousal support, it may bar the collection of other financial obligations in a marital settlement agreement (MSA).
What This Means for People Owed Support
If you have an old support order and want to enforce it, this decision highlights the importance of acting sooner rather than later. Before filing a claim, consider the following:
• Is your claim for unpaid child or spousal support? If so, it remains collectible indefinitely, and the defense of laches does not apply.
• Have you attempted to collect before? If you have made past efforts to enforce the order, it strengthens your case.
• Has the delay caused prejudice to the other party? If key records or witnesses are no longer available, the court may deny enforcement.
• Are interest and penalties increasing? California law imposes a 10% annual interest on unpaid support, which can significantly increase the total amount owed over time.
Steps to Take Now
Given this new ruling, individuals with old support orders should:
a. Review Their Court Judgment – Obtain a copy of the original order and determine what has or has not been paid.
b. Calculate Any Interest Owed – Unpaid amounts accrue interest, potentially making enforcement worthwhile.
c. Consult a Family Law Attorney – A legal expert can evaluate whether your claim is still enforceable and what defenses may arise.

4. Expert Bonding Studies in Juvenile Cases
A court held that juvenile courts may appoint bonding experts under Evidence Code § 730 when necessary, potentially affecting custody/dispute evidence.

2024 and 2025 MAJOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

5. Michael K. v. Cho (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___
In this case, Survivor S.J. K. hired Attorney Cho to represent her in her divorce and DVRO
proceedings against her estranged Husband, Michael K. Survivor used a joint credit card to
pay her fees. Husband contested the charges with the credit card company. Attorney told
the company why the charges were valid, and reiterated to the credit card company the
allegations of abuse Survivor had made against Husband.
Husband then sued Attorney for her statements to the credit card company, claiming libel
(written defamation) (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 45), negligence, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Attorney filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Husband’s complaint,
arguing Attorney’s statements related to the litigation and so were protected by the statute.
Attorney also arguing Husband’s litigation would not prevail on the merits. The trial court
denied Attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion, and Attorney appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that Attorney’s statements “arose from” a
judicial proceeding because the statements were made in relation to Survivor’s ability to
pay Attorney’s fees for the divorce and DVRO litigation. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)
Notably, the court also confirms, “Depriving a spouse of funds required for basic necessities qualifies as abuse under the” DVPA. (Fam. Code, § 6320.) In the unpublished part of the
opinion, the court also concluded that Husband “failed to demonstrate any probability of
prevailing” on his claims.
Statutes used or affected: Civ. Code, §§ 44, 45, 47; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; Fam. Code, §§
2030, 2040, 6320

X.K. v. M.C. (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___
In this case, M.C., a U.S. citizen, subjected ex-wife and mother of their child, X.K., an
emigrant, to years of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, including coercive control—
both in the U.S. and abroad in China. X.K. sought a DVRO against M.C. based on this
abuse. The trial court denied X.K.’s request after a hearing, noting its belief that the case
was more about custody and visitation issues rather than a DVRO, and its question of
whether it had the power to consider abuse that occurred in another country. The appellate
court reversed and remanded for a new hearing. The appellate court explained that abuse
is still abuse, even if it occurs or is alleged during a custody or visitation matter, and abuse
in other countries must still be considered under the “totality of the circumstances”
analysis. (See Fam. Code, §§ 6301, subd. (d), 6320, subd. (c).)
Statutes used or affected: Fam. Code, §§ 6203, 6220, 6221, 6300, 6301, 6320, 6320.5
Bassi v. Bassi (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1080
In this case, during divorce proceedings, Robert asked for a DVRO against his wife, Susan,
because she sent unwanted, harassing, and disturbing emails to Robert. Robert’s business
associates and customers were often copied on the emails resulting in harm to Robert’s
business and life. Susan attempted to dismiss the DVRO request early with an anti-SLAPP
motion, arguing her emails were protected speech and litigation correspondence because
she intended to file a lawsuit against Robert. The trial court denied Susan’s anti-SLAPP
motion; and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)
This case has a few holdings that are quite important: (1) Survivors don’t have to ask the
person who is being abusive to stop the abuse before they can get a DVRO; (2) Behavior
that seems like a “mere annoyance” when it is considered in isolation may actually be abuse
when the parties’ history is considered; (3) Any type of abuse –such as unwanted contacts,
harassment, or disturbing the peace–can be enough for a DVRO, even if only one form of
abuse was used against the survivor; (4) Abuse is abuse, even without threats or violence;
(5) Curcio v. Pels, discussed in Section I(B)in , should be used in a very limited way, when
trying to say conduct isn’t abuse; (6) the anti-SLAPP law couldn’t prevent the DVRO
request here because the few messages that involved litigation were sufficiently abusive, as
a prima facie matter, so they were not covered by the law; and (7) the litigation privilege
(Civ. Code, § 47) couldn’t be used to prevent the DVRO request here because many of the
emails were not lawsuit-related and were sufficiently abusive, as a prima facie matter.
Statutes used or affected: Fam. Code, §§ 6300, 6301, 6320; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; Civ.Code 47.