 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Meteer3/12/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Carrol Meteer Herr and Stephen Herr were married for over 19 years when Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on October 31, 1997. The parties signed a marital settlement agreement regarding property issues and a bifurcated judgment was issued on July 27, 2000. As relevant to this appeal, the remaining issues concerned custody and visitation of the youngest of the couple's three sons, child support, and spousal support. Husband appeals from the June 20, 2001, further judgment on reserved issues.
Husband claims the trial court abused its discretion (I) by failing to consider evidence pertaining to Wife's September 1999 pretrial hospitalization before issuing its custody order concerning their youngest son, Mark, age 7, (II) by issuing legal and physical custody orders as to Mark based on evidence which was not credible, and (III) in issuing its spousal support order. Husband further contends that (IV) with respect to both spousal and child support, the court erred in imputing income to Husband from his stock portfolio without also anticipating the costs he would incur on stock sales.
We reject Husband's claims and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
When the petition was filed, Wife, a homemaker, was in her mid- 40's, and Husband, a gastroenterologist in private practice, was in his mid-50's. Husband filed his response March 23, 1998. Pursuant to a February 1998 conciliation court agreement and stipulated order, the parties agreed to a temporary resolution of custody and visitation. The parties would share joint legal custody. Husband and Wife were to confer and neither parent was to make unilaterally any major decision regarding the boys' education or non-emergency medical condition. The two older boys were to live primarily with Husband with specified times for visitation with Wife. Mark would live primarily with Wife with specified times for visitation with Husband. Husband and Wife "mutually agree to participate in a custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Alan Gottfried." The custody arrangement essentially remained the same throughout these proceedings. On the same day, the parties agreed to standard mutual restraining orders and Husband agreed to a residence exclusion order. By another stipulation, filed March 3, 1998, the parties agreed that Husband would pay Wife $1,356 per month for support of the three boys and $2,398 per month spousal support.
In her petition, Wife had requested sole legal and physical custody of the boys, child and spousal support, attorney fees and property orders. In his response to the petition, Husband requested joint legal custody of the boys, but asked that he be awarded sole physical custody.
On March 30, the parties engaged Dr. Gottfried, a psychologist, to conduct a private psychological custody evaluation. Dr. Gottfried issued his report August 7, 1999.
Meanwhile, in May 2000, Husband issued a deposition subpoena duces tecum to Simi Valley Hospital, returnable on June 7, 2000. He sought records of Wife's admission for psychiatric treatment in September 1999. Wife filed a motion to quash, invoking the psychotherapist-patient and physician-patient privileges. Following argument on July 3, 2000, the trial court took the matter under submission and deferred its ruling until the time of trial. On July 6, the court granted Wif
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|