Contract analysis

I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND JURISDICTIONAL BASIS

1. Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Respondent Rafael Joaquín Medrano ("Respondent") are former registered domestic partners in the State of California. The parties registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741.

2. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, commencing the action styled In re the Domestic Partnership of Fonseca and Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847.

3. A Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022. The Judgment resolved all issues pertaining to the division of community property and community obligations. However, the Judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to the custody, visitation, and child support of the parties' two minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonsec

4. No custody, visitation, or child support orders have been entered in this matter to date. Since the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties have been operating under an informal, unwritten arrangement regarding the children's time with each parent. As set forth more fully below, this informal arrangement has proven insufficient to protect the children's best interests.

5. This Court has continuing subject matter jurisdiction over custody, visitation, and child support pursuant to California Family Code sections 3022 and 4009. The State of California is the home state of both minor children within the meaning of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), Family Code sections 3400 et seq. Both children have resided in California since birth and currently r

II. IDENTIFICATION OF MINOR CHILDREN

6. The parties are the parents of two minor children: (a) Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently six (6) years of age. Isabela is currently enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Annual tuition for Isabela's first-grade program is Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($32,400.00). (b) Mateo Elí

7. Both Isabela and Mateo are the biological children of Petitioner and Respondent. There are no other children of the parties' domestic partnership.

8. At the time of this filing, both children reside primarily with Petitioner at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Respondent resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. The parties' residences are located approximately 3.2 miles apart.

III. ORDERS REQUESTED Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court enter the following orders: A. Child Custody Orders

9. Petitioner requests that this Court make orders regarding both legal custody and physical custody of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

10. Legal Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint legal custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the following modification: Petitioner requests that the Court award tie-breaking decision-making authority to Petitioner with respect to all educational decisions affecting the minor children, including but not limited to decisions regarding school enrollment, school selection, ed

11. With respect to all other major life decisions concerning the minor children — including but not limited to decisions regarding healthcare, mental health treatment, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities — Petitioner requests that the parties share equal joint legal custody authority, with an obligation to consult in good faith and to attempt to reach agreement before either parent makes unilateral

12. Physical Custody. Petitioner requests that the Court award joint physical custody of both minor children to Petitioner and Respondent, with the children's primary residence designated as Petitioner's home at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Petitioner's home is the residence in which the children have lived for the majority of the time since the parties' separation, and it is

13. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a structured custodial timeshare schedule that reflects the children's need for stability during the school year. In fashioning such a schedule, Petitioner respectfully asks the Court to take into account Respondent's variable and often unpredictable work schedule as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography in the film and television industry. Respondent

14. Petitioner requests that the Court establish a regular school-year parenting time schedule that allocates a majority of overnights to Petitioner, consistent with the children's historical caregiving arrangements and the practical realities of the parties' respective work obligations. Petitioner proposes that Respondent have parenting time on alternating weekends (Friday after school or 3:00 p.m. through Monday mo

15. Petitioner further requests that the Court establish an equitable summer schedule that provides both parents with extended uninterrupted time with the children during the summer recess, while preserving the children's enrollment in any summer programs at Ridgeview Academy or other agreed-upon activities.

16. Petitioner requests that the Court include specific provisions addressing the following: (a) Holiday and Vacation Rotation. The Court should establish a detailed holiday rotation schedule, alternating major holidays (including but not limited to Thanksgiving, winter break, spring break, Independence Day, Labor Day, and Memorial Day) between the parties on an annual or biannual basis. Each parent should have the c

17. Petitioner requests that this Court order Respondent to pay child support in accordance with the California statewide uniform child support guidelines set forth in California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076. A guideline calculation should be performed based on the parties' respective incomes and the custodial timeshare ultimately ordered by the Court.

18. Petitioner's Income. Petitioner is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., with offices located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. Petitioner's total annual compensation is approximately Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($870,000.00), comprising the following components: (a) Base salary of Four Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Doll

19. Petitioner's estimated gross monthly income is approximately Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($72,500.00). Full details of Petitioner's income, deductions, assets, and expenses are set forth in Petitioner's Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150), filed concurrently herewith.

20. Respondent's Income. Respondent works as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography on feature films and episodic television productions. Respondent does not receive a regular salary. Rather, he is engaged on a project-by-project basis and his income varies substantially from year to year and from month to month. Respondent operates through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limi

21. Petitioner requests that the Court impute income to Respondent based on his earning capacity and historical earnings, consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b). Respondent is an experienced and highly skilled cinematographer who has worked on multiple major studio and streaming platform productions. His earning capacity is well-established. Given the variable nature of Respondent's freelance income a

22. To that end, Petitioner has retained Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, a forensic accountant and partner at Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, to conduct a comprehensive forensic income analysis of Respondent's freelance earnings, loan-out entity income, and related financial matters for purposes of the child support calculation. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis will include a review of Respondent's personal and business tax retur

23. Petitioner requests that the Court allocate the costs of the children's private school tuition at Ridgeview Academy between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. The total combined annual tuition for both children at Ridgeview Academy is Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($59,200.00), comprised of T

24. Both children have been enrolled at Ridgeview Academy since the earliest age of enrollment eligibility. Both parties agreed to the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy during the domestic partnership. Respondent has historically contributed to tuition costs, and Petitioner submits that it is in the children's best interests to remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, where they have established strong academic

25. Private school tuition constitutes an add-on child care cost that may be ordered as an addition to the guideline child support amount pursuant to Family Code section 4062(b). Petitioner requests that the Court exercise its discretion to order that these costs be shared between the parties, with each party responsible for a pro rata share based on each party's percentage of the parties' combined gross income. E. H

26. Petitioner requests that the Court order that both minor children remain enrolled in Petitioner's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The plan is carried by Veridian Health Insurance Co. and provides comprehensive medical, dental, vision, and prescription drug coverage. The children have been enrolled on Petitioner's plan since birth, and their current pediatrician,

27. Petitioner further requests that the Court order that all reasonable and necessary unreimbursed healthcare expenses for the minor children — including but not limited to medical, dental, orthodontic, optometric, psychological, psychiatric, and other mental health expenses — be shared between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes, or in such other proportion as the Court deems just and appropriate.

28. Petitioner requests such other and further orders as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances, including but not limited to orders regarding the exchange of financial information, orders regarding the production of documents necessary for the child support calculation, and any other orders necessary to protect the best interests of the minor children.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST A. History of the Domestic Partnership and the Children

29. Petitioner and Respondent registered their domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015. The parties resided together as domestic partners at various residences in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, California throughout the duration of their partnership.

30. The parties are the parents of two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019. Both children were born during the parties' domestic partnership and both children are the biological children of both Petitioner and Respondent.

31. On July 8, 2022, Petitioner filed the Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership that initiated this action. The parties separated on or about June 15, 2022. The dissolution proceeding was resolved on an expedited basis, and a Judgment of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership was entered on November 3, 2022. As noted above, the Judgment resolved property and obligation issues but expressly reserved jurisdicti

32. Following the entry of the Dissolution Judgment, the parties did not seek court orders regarding custody, visitation, or child support. Instead, the children split time between both parents' homes under an informal, unwritten arrangement. Under this arrangement, the children generally spent weekday nights with Petitioner — given Petitioner's proximity to Ridgeview Academy and her established weekday routine with

33. The informal arrangement functioned adequately through the fall and winter of 2022 and early months of 2023, though it was not without difficulty. The arrangement required frequent, sometimes daily, communication between the parties regarding scheduling, and it was inherently dependent on Respondent's fluctuating work commitments. On multiple occasions, Respondent was required to cancel or modify his planned time

34. In approximately late February 2023, Respondent accepted a seven-week engagement as the director of photography on a feature film production shooting on location in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Respondent departed for Vancouver on or about March 6, 2023, and did not return to Los Angeles until approximately April 22, 2023. Respondent provided Petitioner with less than two weeks' advance notice of his depa

35. During the entirety of Respondent's seven-week absence, the full burden of day-to-day caregiving for both children fell exclusively upon Petitioner. Petitioner managed all school drop-offs and pick-ups, all extracurricular activities, all medical and dental appointments, all meals, all homework assistance, all bedtime routines, and all weekend care for both children, in addition to her demanding full-time employm

36. The disruption caused by Respondent's unplanned extended absence from Los Angeles was significant. It disrupted the children's routine and their expectation of regular time with both parents. It placed an extraordinary caregiving burden on Petitioner. And it demonstrated, conclusively, that the informal arrangement between the parties is insufficient to protect the children's need for stability, consistency, and

37. The breakdown of the informal arrangement is the primary impetus for this Request for Order. A formal, court-ordered custody and visitation schedule — with specific provisions addressing work-related travel and the right of first refusal — is necessary to prevent future disruptions and to ensure that the children's best interests are protected. C. Petitioner's Role as Primary Caregiver

38. Petitioner has been the children's primary caregiver throughout their lives. From birth, Petitioner has been the parent primarily responsible for the children's day-to-day needs, including feeding, bathing, dressing, school preparation, homework supervision, medical care, and bedtime routines. While Respondent has been a loving and involved parent when present and available, his work as a freelance cinematographe

39. Petitioner's work schedule, though demanding, is stable and predictable. Petitioner's office at the headquarters of Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505, approximately twenty (20) minutes from both the children's school and Petitioner's home. Petitioner's typical workday permits her to manage school drop-off in the morning and to be available for pick-u

40. Petitioner manages all aspects of the children's enrollment and participation at Ridgeview Academy. Petitioner completed the applications for both children's enrollment, attends all parent-teacher conferences, communicates regularly with teachers and school administrators, volunteers for school events, and monitors the children's academic progress. Petitioner also manages the children's medical appointments, incl

41. Petitioner enrolls and coordinates both children's extracurricular activities, including Isabela's Saturday morning gymnastics class, Isabela's weekly piano lessons, and Mateo's participation in a toddler soccer program. These activities take place in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area, in proximity to both the children's school and Petitioner's home. D. Respondent's Work Schedule and Residence

42. Respondent is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works on feature films and episodic television productions. He is a skilled professional with credits on several critically recognized productions. However, the nature of his work is inherently variable and unpredictable. Feature film productions may require weeks or months of on-location shooting in distant cities or countries. Episodic te

43. Respondent operates his freelance business through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Petitioner is informed and believes that Respondent receives payment for his professional services through this entity, and that the entity is used to manage income, expenses, and tax obligations associated with Respondent's freelance work.

44. Respondent currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. Respondent's residence is an apartment in a multi-unit building. While the residence is adequate for the children's visits, it is located approximately 3.2 miles from Petitioner's home and slightly farther from Ridgeview Academy than Petitioner's home. E. Children's Best Interests

45. Both children are thriving at Ridgeview Academy and have established strong social and educational routines in the Sherman Oaks and Studio City area. Isabela is performing well in first grade and has developed close friendships with her classmates. She enjoys her gymnastics and piano lessons and is well-adjusted socially and emotionally. Mateo is flourishing in the pre-kindergarten program, where he is developing

46. Stability and consistency in the children's daily schedule, schooling, and living arrangements are paramount to their well-being. Both children benefit from a predictable routine that includes regular wake-up and bedtime schedules, consistent school drop-off and pick-up times, and reliable access to their extracurricular activities and social networks. A structured custody and visitation schedule, anchored by the

47. Both Petitioner and Respondent love their children and are devoted to their well-being. Petitioner does not seek to exclude Respondent from the children's lives. To the contrary, Petitioner recognizes the importance of the children's relationship with Respondent and seeks an order that facilitates frequent and continuing contact with both parents — while providing the structure and predictability that the informa

48. The orders requested herein serve the best interests of the minor children as that standard is defined under California Family Code section 3011, taking into account the health, safety, and welfare of the children; each parent's ability to provide a stable and nurturing environment; the children's established routines and relationships; the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and the practical realiti

V. LEGAL BASIS A. Custody — Best Interests Standard

49. California Family Code section 3011 provides that, in making a determination of the best interests of the child for purposes of custody and visitation orders, the Court shall consider, among any other factors it finds relevant, the following: (a) the health, safety, and welfare of the child; (b) any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against any child to whom the parent is related

50. California Family Code section 3020, subdivision (b), establishes the public policy of the State of California to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or dissolve their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing in the best interests of the child, except where such contact would not be in the be

51. California Family Code section 3040 establishes the order of preference for custody awards. Subdivision (a)(1) provides that custody should be granted to both parents jointly or to either parent, in accordance with the best interests of the child. There is no presumption in favor of or against joint custody. Here, Petitioner seeks joint legal and joint physical custody, with a primary residence designation and st

52. California Family Code section 3022 provides that the Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify custody orders at any time it determines that a modification is in the best interests of the child. Because no custody orders have yet been entered in this matter, the Court is making an initial custody determination, and the standard is the best interests of the children under sections 3011 and 3020. B. Child Suppor

53. California Family Code sections 4050 through 4076 establish the statewide uniform guideline for the determination of child support obligations. Family Code section 4053 sets forth the principles underlying the guideline, including the principles that a parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life; that both parents are

54. Family Code section 4055 provides the algebraic formula for calculating guideline child support, which takes into account the parties' respective net disposable incomes and the percentage of time each parent has primary physical responsibility for the children (the "custodial timeshare"). Petitioner requests that the Court calculate guideline child support based on the parties' incomes and the custodial timeshare

55. Family Code section 4058(a) defines "annual gross income" for purposes of the guideline calculation to include income from whatever source derived, including but not limited to wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, rents, dividends, interest, and income from self-employment. Section 4058(b) provides that the Court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent's income, c