Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF This Brief is submitted on behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") in advance of the second mediation session scheduled for December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. The purpose of this Brief is threefold: (1) to update the mediator on significant developments that have occurred since Sessi

II. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MEDIATION SESSION 1 A. Outcome of Session 1 (November 17, 2023) Session 1, conducted on November 17, 2023, was productive and laid important groundwork for a potential resolution, although the parties were unable to reach a complete agreement on all issues. The session lasted approximately five hours, during which the mediator met with both parties and their respective counsel in a c

1. Timeshare. Mr. Medrano proposes a 55/45 timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor, which would result in approximately 201 overnights per year with Ms. Fonseca and approximately 164 overnights per year with Mr. Medrano. Mr. Medrano argues that his work schedule has "stabilized" and that he is now capable of providing a consistent custodial environment for the children on a near-equal basis.

2. Child support. Mr. Medrano seeks guideline child support or above-guideline support payable by Ms. Fonseca, citing the significant income disparity between the parties. At a 55/45 timeshare, the guideline amount would be substantially higher than at the 63.6/36.4 timeshare proposed by Ms. Fonseca, because the higher-earning parent with fewer overnights pays more under the California formula.

3. Tie-breaking authority. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority for Ms. Fonseca on educational decisions, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all major decisions, without exception.

4. Tuition cost-sharing. Mr. Medrano proposes an equal (50/50) split of Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, notwithstanding the significant income disparity between the parties.

5. On-location work threshold. Mr. Medrano proposes a more lenient on-location threshold of 21 consecutive calendar days rather than 14, before custodial time transfers to the other parent. As discussed in detail below, Ms. Fonseca believes that several aspects of Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal are inconsistent with the custody evaluation, contrary to the children's best interests, and financially inequitable. Nevert

III. MS. FONSECA'S REVISED SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK Having carefully considered Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal, the custody evaluation, Minor's Counsel's input, and the discussions that took place during Session 1, Ms. Fonseca presents the following revised settlement framework for consideration during Session 2. This revised framework represents meaningful concessions from Ms. Fonseca's Session 1 position and reflects h

IV. CHILD SUPPORT — GUIDELINE ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED DEVIATION A. Income of the Parties A child support determination under the California guideline formula requires an accurate assessment of both parties' gross monthly incomes. The parties' respective incomes are as follows: Marguerite D. Fonseca. Ms. Fonseca is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Lum

1. Offsetting extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement. As set forth in Section V.B below, Ms. Fonseca proposes that Mr. Medrano bear 60% of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (with Ms. Fonseca bearing 40%), up to a cap of $1,500 per child per quarter. This disproportionately favorable arrangement for Mr. Medrano provides a direct financial offset to the $174/month reduction in monthly support. When the to

2. Ms. Fonseca's disproportionate share of educational costs. As discussed in Section V.A below, Ms. Fonseca proposes to bear 70% of the children's Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, which total $59,200 per year. Ms. Fonseca's 70% share amounts to $41,440 per year, or approximately $3,453 per month. This substantial ongoing financial commitment by Ms. Fonseca benefits the children directly and indirectly benefits Mr. M

3. Modest magnitude of the deviation. The proposed deviation is $174 per month, which amounts to $2,088 per year. In the context of the parties' combined gross annual income of approximately $1,210,000 and the comprehensive financial terms being proposed, this is a modest adjustment that does not materially affect Mr. Medrano's financial well-being or his ability to provide for the children. D. Response to Mr. Medran

V. EDUCATION, EXTRACURRICULAR, AND HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING A. Education Costs — Ridgeview Academy Tuition Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Both parties have expressed their commitment to maintaining the children's enrollment at Ridgeview, and this commitment was one of the areas of consensus reached during Session 1. The current an

VI. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION PROVISIONS Ms. Fonseca proposes that the child support amount be subject to review on the anniversary of the entry of the order, or at any time upon a material change in circumstances. For purposes of this provision, a "material change in circumstances" shall be defined as: (a) A change in either party's gross annual income exceeding 15% (whether an increase or a decrease), sustaine

VII. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT Ms. Fonseca proposes the inclusion of a mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement clause in any final agreement reached through this mediation. Both parties are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, one of the major entertainment companies in Lo

VIII. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 2 For the mediator's convenience, Ms. Fonseca respectfully summarizes the principal issues that remain in dispute and that should be the focus of discussion during Session 2:

1. Timeshare percentage. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 63.6/36.4 timeshare (232/133 overnights); Mr. Medrano seeks 55/45 (approximately 201/164 overnights). The custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen supports a majority-time arrangement with Ms. Fonseca, and Minor's Counsel, Ms. Brannigan, has expressed support for a primary-residence framework. Ms. Fonseca has already moved from her Session 1 position of approximatel

2. Child support amount. Ms. Fonseca proposes $1,100 per month (a deviation of $174 below the guideline amount of $1,274); Mr. Medrano seeks guideline or above-guideline support. The extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement, in which Mr. Medrano bears 60% of extracurricular costs, is the principal offsetting factor justifying the deviation. Ms. Fonseca submits that the total economic package — monthly support, tuitio

3. Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. Ms. Fonseca seeks tie-breaking authority on educational decisions only, based on her established role as the primary educational decision-maker and the supporting findings of the custody evaluation. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all issues. This issue may benefit from the mediator's guidance, as it invo

4. On-location work threshold. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 14-consecutive-calendar-day threshold for triggering custodial time transfers during extended work-related travel; Mr. Medrano proposes 21 consecutive calendar days. Minor's Counsel supports the 14-day threshold. The children's ages and Mr. Medrano's demonstrated pattern of multi-week on-location work support the shorter threshold.

5. Tuition cost-sharing ratio. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70/30 split, which is proportionate to the parties' respective incomes; Mr. Medrano proposes a 50/50 split, which would impose a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Medrano and is inconsistent with the income-proportionate framework applied to other shared expenses.

6. Parenting plan coordinator selection. Ms. Fonseca has proposed Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT, of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, as the parenting plan coordinator. Ms. Fonseca awaits Mr. Medrano's response regarding this selection and is open to discussing alternative candidates if Mr. Medrano has objections. Ms. Fonseca is hopeful that, with the mediator's skilled assistance, the parties can narrow or resolve t

IX. CONCLUSION Ms. Fonseca's revised settlement framework, as set forth in this Brief, represents a genuine and good-faith effort to bridge the gap between the parties' positions on the issues that remain in dispute following Session 1. The proposed terms are grounded in the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen, the guideline child support calculations under the California Family Code, the input of Minor's Co