A Model Prisoner's Model Prisoner may be released on Parole

Sullivan committed a violent crime and was sentenced to 7 years to life. He had been in front of the parole board 16 or 17 times. During his incarceration he was the model prisoner's model prisoners. He has had not been disciplined in 23 years, one petty infraction.

Sullivan had many talents as he had been working on rehab and learned several professions while he was in prison. His psychiatrist found little reason that he would not be a model member of the community. Everyone had said that he was a model prisoner's model prisoner. But the prison parole board found that because of the violence at the time that the crime was done and the usage of a gun that he would be a risk. On further investigation it became clear that gun would not have worked and Sullivan knew it, but the Parole board still harked back to the gun. Sullivan also showed that he had job plans, a place to stay and had been doing his programs.

The Habeus Corpus issued significantly on the findings that Sullivan was a model prisoner, that at some point due to the passage of time unchangeable facts become less important; if we have any belief in
the rehabilitation process and in the competence of people who say that they find nothing
to suggest that the prisoner is a risk. At some time the model prisoner's model prisoner has to be taken serious and this is the time.

This case is only made more interesting by the fact that Sullivan did his Habeus Corpus petition by himself


Sullivan v. Ayers, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103413 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2009)

Issues: Child Support, Income Determination, Imputation of income, Balance between maximizing income and Parenting


Parties have a responsibility to contribute monetarily to raising the children. A custodial parent does so directly by providing, food, water and other necessities of life to the child. A non-custodial parent does so, by contributing a portion of their income to the custodial parent.

The amount of money that is determined by formulas in the family code and is called guideline child support. One of the inputs to the formula is income. Income is only the income of the parents, unless it would lead to an extreme hardship for the child, then the court can look at community income. The trial court must first find extreme hardship before it can look at community income.

This case was remanded for more evidence on the relevant facts which would result in a lawful order and procedure.

The unpublished case below shows this process:

At judgement Father had joint legal custody, visitation several days and Child Support (CS) of $1772

Employment efforts order against Wife.

At the time of the order, Randall who worked for Tire Co was commuting to Riverside. At order he asked his employer for accomodation for visiting his child and started working in Visalia which allowed for visitation.

Tire Co wanted Dad back in Riverside, which he could not do without forfeiting visitation

Tire Co said he could stay at Riverside at 60% of salary

Tire Co then terminated Father

Father starts working for In laws at 40% of prior Salary


Father files motion w/ new I and E Mother says Father's change in income was to avoid CS

Father's response is, to be a father I need to visit

Father's testimony is no jobs like old job. So I earn less

The trial court refused to impute at rate of old job, and said Father forced to choose between a much better paying job and being a dad. No one should have to make that trade.

Guideline would be $68.00 and court determined that was inequitable and deviated. The court also went on to say that new employer (inlaws) was a closely held corp and therefore Father could have sway in determination and therefore new wife's income was factored in to the determination

Section 4057.5 prohibits use of new spouse income unless there is a finding of extreme hardship for the child BEFORE the new spouse income is factored in. As a matter of law 91K can not be shown to be insufficient.

No evidence showing that the two parents could not take care of the needs of the children and there was no extraordinary circumstances shown.

Remanded to take into account Father's more time, and Mother's higher income

In re Thomas, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8272 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Oct. 19, 2009)

CA Income determination support

In an unpublished opinion the Appeals Court upheld an order determining that the lower court's Smith/Ossler type order on the income of a self-employed consultant where the consultant topped out his income and got ownership interest in a company could not be determined to be the multiplier of the consultant's hourly rate times 40 hours a week.

The experts testimony on the above was not sufficient to show he could earn the hourly rate 40 hours a week.

Earning Capacity is income the party is reasonably capable of earning based on the spouses age, health, education, marketable skils, employment history and available employment opportunities.

Here The expert admitted that there was nothing to show that 40 hours was reasonable in light of the 10K cap from the consultee and only 10 to 18 percent of the income coming from hourly.

There has to be a showing of ability to work, and an employer willing to hire, none of which was shown in the evidence.

Bottom Line: The fact that you can multiply 40 times an hourly rate will not be sufficient to show income unless you can show someone who is willing to hire for 40 times the hourly rate.

In re the Marriage of SUZANNE S. and KARL B. HIGGINS. SUZANNE S. WINN,Appellant, v. KARL B. HIGGINS, Respondent. D054223

Divorce California - You can't give community assets away without telling your spouse.

Wife sues father-in-law and brother's in law for the transfer of business for less than fair market value. Husband owned the sole share of a business worth approximately 15 Million father-in-law and brothers-in-law convince Husband to transfer 15 percent to brother who is going bankrupt without telling wife and concealing from wife her community property interest as well as the transfer. Community property is property not owned before or after marriage that stems from the industry of the parties.

Of course the parties eventually get divorced, wife finds out about the transfer and wants half of the value of the business. Wife argues that pursuant to family code section 1100 which prohibits disposal of community property for less than fair market value, the community should recover the property.

Extended family argue that your causes of action are barred by the 3 year statute because you plead in your moving papers the transfer was 6 years ago.

Appeals Court finds that concealment moves the date of commencement of discovery of the facts regarding a case to the date the party knew or should have known about the transfer.

The Appeals Court further finds that the extended families position that they had no duty to disclose the nature of the transaction and therefore the statute of limitation's tolling does not apply to them is not valid. Using that logic a spouse could convey property and then have the recipient wait out the statute before asserting ownership. This type of transfer has been previously found to be unlawful.

The bottom line here is that the court is not going to sanction a transfer of community property below market value nor allow a third party to benefit from it without knowledge of the other spouse.

MARYAM RASHTCHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ARMAN RASHTCHI et al.,Defendants and Respondents.G041360

OCTOMOM's Family not subject to Guardianship of the estate

The director of a non profit corporation sought a Guardian of the estate for Nadya Suleman -- the Octomom's eight Children. Suleman sought a dismissal in the lower court saying among other things that this fellow has not pleaded ultimate facts that show that I am not taking care of the estate other than showing that I received 25K for some photos of the kids.

The lower court said that a stranger can apply for a guardianship. The Appeals court found that the statutory language of "other person on behalf of the minor" requires that a person pleads ultimate facts demonstrating financial misconduct or alleges other information sufficient to warrant court intervention in the management of the minor's property.

This stranger did not provide sufficient facts. No Standing, No Case.

NADYA SULEMAN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; PAUL PETERSEN, Real Party in Interest.