Contract analysis

I. STIPULATION The parties, Petitioner MARGUERITE DELPHINE FONSECA ("Petitioner") and Respondent RAFAEL JOAQUÍN MEDRANO ("Respondent"), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: A. Recitals

1. Petitioner and Respondent are the parents of two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017 (age 6), and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019 (age 3) (collectively, the "Minor Children").

2. Petitioner and Respondent registered a domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under File No. DP-2015-038741. The parties' domestic partnership was the legal equivalent of marriage under California Family Code § 297.5 and gave rise to all rights and obligations attendant thereto.

3. On or about May 18, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in this Court, commencing the above-captioned action. A Judgment of Dissolution was entered by this Court on November 3, 2022, in Case No. 22STFL09847. The Judgment of Dissolution expressly reserved jurisdiction over all issues relating to custody of, visitation with, and child support for the Minor Children for further d

4. On May 2, 2023, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (FL-300) seeking modification of custody and a determination of child support obligations. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration to the Request for Order on May 19, 2023.

5. On May 30, 2023, following a hearing on Petitioner's Request for Order, this Court entered a Temporary Custody Order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Petitioner during the pendency of these proceedings. The Temporary Custody Order designated Petitioner's residence as the primary residence for the Minor Children and set forth a temporary visitation schedule for Respondent. The Temporary Custody Order rema

6. On June 22, 2023, the Court, on its own motion and with the agreement of both parties, appointed Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), of 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500, Woodland Hills, CA 91367, as Minor's Counsel for the Minor Children pursuant to California Family Code § 3150. Ms. Brannigan has appeared in this matter and continues to serve in that capacity.

7. The parties, through their respective counsel, have met and conferred regarding the custody disputes at issue in this matter and have determined that the best interests of the Minor Children would be served by the appointment of a qualified child custody evaluator to conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation and provide recommendations to the Court and the parties. The parties believe that such an evaluation will

8. This Stipulation is entered into pursuant to California Family Code §§ 3110 and 3111 and California Evidence Code § 730, which authorize the Court to appoint experts, including child custody evaluators, to investigate and report on custody and visitation issues. B. Identification of Evaluator

9. The parties stipulate and agree to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., California Licensed Clinical Psychologist, License No. PSY 24891, of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., located at 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 420, Encino, CA 91436, telephone (818) 555-9470, as the child custody evaluator in this matter (hereinafter, the "Evaluator").

10. The parties represent to the Court that Dr. Sorensen has confirmed her availability and willingness to accept the appointment and to serve as the child custody evaluator in this case. Dr. Sorensen has indicated that she is able to commence the evaluation process promptly upon receipt of the Court's Order and the requisite retainer payments.

11. Dr. Sorensen has represented to the parties and their counsel that she has no prior professional or personal relationship with either Petitioner or Respondent, with either of the Minor Children, or with counsel for either party, and that no circumstances exist that would impair her objectivity, impartiality, or ability to render a fair and balanced evaluation, or that would otherwise create a conflict of interest

12. Dr. Sorensen is experienced and qualified in the conduct of child custody evaluations. She holds a Doctor of Psychology degree, is licensed by the California Board of Psychology, and has conducted custody evaluations in the Los Angeles Superior Court and other California courts for a period of more than twelve years. C. Scope of Evaluation

13. The Evaluator shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the custodial circumstances of the two Minor Children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano. The evaluation shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following components: (a) Individual Interviews with Each Parent. The Evaluator shall conduct individual clinical interviews with each parent, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca and Rafa

14. Based on the evaluation, the Evaluator shall address the following issues and make recommendations to the Court regarding: (a) Legal Custody. Whether legal custody of the Minor Children should be awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both parents. In the event the Evaluator recommends joint legal custody, the Evaluator shall address whether either parent should be designated with tie-breaking decision-making

15. Both Petitioner and Respondent shall fully and promptly cooperate with the Evaluator throughout the evaluation process. Such cooperation shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following obligations: (a) Making themselves available for individual interviews, joint sessions (if the Evaluator determines such sessions are appropriate), observations, and psychological testing at times reasonably scheduled by

16. Each party shall make the Minor Children available for the Evaluator's interviews, observations, and assessments as requested by the Evaluator. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold or delay the Minor Children's participation in any aspect of the evaluation. In the event a scheduling conflict arises, the affected party shall promptly notify the Evaluator and cooperate in rescheduling at the earliest available

17. Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., shall be available for consultation with the Evaluator as needed throughout the evaluation process and shall facilitate the Evaluator's access to the Minor Children as appropriate. Minor's Counsel may provide the Evaluator with information, observations, and perspectives regarding the Minor Children's wishes and best interests, consistent with her role under California F

18. Failure by either party to cooperate with the Evaluator may be reported by the Evaluator to the Court and may result in sanctions or adverse inferences, as the Court deems appropriate. E. Communication Protocol

19. Neither party nor their counsel shall engage in ex parte communications with the Evaluator regarding the substance of the evaluation, the merits of any custody or visitation issue, or any matter that could reasonably be expected to influence the Evaluator's findings or recommendations. All substantive communications with the Evaluator shall be made in writing, with copies provided simultaneously to the opposing p

20. Administrative communications, including but not limited to the scheduling and rescheduling of appointments, directions to the Evaluator's office, and logistical arrangements for home visits, may be made directly between a party (or a party's counsel) and the Evaluator, provided that the other party's counsel is promptly notified of the substance of such administrative communications. The parties agree that admin

21. Minor's Counsel may communicate directly with the Evaluator regarding the Minor Children's needs, welfare, and best interests, consistent with her duties under California Family Code § 3150. Minor's Counsel shall promptly inform counsel for both parties of any substantive communications with the Evaluator. F. Fees

22. The Evaluator's fee for the custody evaluation described herein is Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($18,500.00). This fee covers the Evaluator's professional services in conducting the evaluation, including all interviews, observations, home visits, collateral contacts, document review, psychological testing (if administered), report preparation, and related administrative tasks.

23. The Evaluator's fee shall be split equally between the parties as follows: (a) Petitioner, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, shall pay Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($9,250.00); and (b) Respondent, Rafael Joaquín Medrano, shall pay Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($9,250.00).

24. Each party shall pay their respective share of the fee directly to Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., in accordance with the Evaluator's standard payment schedule. An initial retainer payment, in the amount specified by the Evaluator, shall be due from each party within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the Court's execution of the Order set forth below. The Evaluator is not obligated to commence t

25. In the event that additional fees are incurred beyond the initial $18,500.00 due to circumstances requiring additional evaluation procedures, extended collateral contacts, supplemental psychological testing, or other unforeseen requirements, such additional fees shall be split equally between the parties unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing or ordered by the Court. The Evaluator shall notify counsel

26. The allocation of fees set forth herein is without prejudice to either party's right to seek reallocation of the Evaluator's fees as part of a request for contribution to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to California Family Code §§ 2030 and 2032, or as otherwise permitted by law. G. Report and Timeline

27. The Evaluator shall use her best professional efforts to complete the evaluation and deliver a written report within approximately twelve (12) weeks of the commencement of the evaluation, or as soon as practicable thereafter. The parties acknowledge that the timeline may be affected by factors outside the Evaluator's control, including the parties' availability for appointments, the responsiveness of collateral s

28. Upon completion of the evaluation, the Evaluator shall deliver her written report simultaneously to the following: (a) Counsel for Petitioner: Devon Archer, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90017; (b) Counsel for Respondent: Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, CA 91505; and (c) Minor's Counsel: Tessa L. Branniga

29. The Evaluator's written report, together with all underlying notes, records, test data, and evaluation materials, shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party except as permitted by applicable law, the California Rules of Court, or by order of this Court. The parties acknowledge that the court file in this matter is subject to a concurrent Stipulation and Order to Seal filed or to be fi

30. Counsel for each party may share the report with their respective client for the purpose of case preparation, litigation, and settlement discussions. Each party, upon receiving the report from their counsel, shall not copy, distribute, or disclose the report or its contents to any third party without prior authorization from the Court. H. Testimony

31. In the event this matter proceeds to a contested hearing or trial on the custody issues, the Evaluator may be called to testify as an expert witness regarding her findings, opinions, and recommendations. The Evaluator may testify at the request of either party, Minor's Counsel, or the Court.

32. The cost of the Evaluator's testimony, including her reasonable fees for preparation time, travel time, and court appearance time, shall be borne equally by the parties unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Evaluator's hourly rate for testimony and preparation shall be in accordance with her standard fee schedule in effect at the time of the hearing or trial.

33. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as limiting either party's right to cross-examine the Evaluator, to call rebuttal expert witnesses, or to otherwise challenge the Evaluator's findings and recommendations, as permitted by law.

I. Governing Law and Authority

34. This Stipulation is entered into pursuant to California Family Code §§ 3110 and 3111, which authorize the Court to appoint a child custody evaluator to conduct an investigation and report to the Court on issues of custody and visitation, and California Evidence Code § 730, which authorizes the Court to appoint an expert to investigate, render a report, and testify as an expert.

35. The parties acknowledge and understand that the Evaluator's report and recommendations are advisory in nature. The Court retains the ultimate and exclusive authority to make all custody and visitation determinations in the best interests of the Minor Children under California Family Code § 3011 et seq. Neither party shall be deemed to have waived any right to present evidence, call witnesses, or advance arguments

36. This Stipulation shall be binding on the parties upon execution by both parties and their respective counsel, and approval by Minor's Counsel, subject to approval and entry of an order by the Court. SIGNATURES TO STIPULATION The undersigned parties and their respective attorneys of record hereby agree and stipulate to the foregoing terms and conditions. By signing below, each party represents that they have read

II. ORDER The Court, having reviewed and considered the foregoing Stipulation of the parties filed herewith, together with the entire file and record in this matter, and good cause appearing therefor: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Appointment of Evaluator. Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., California Licensed Clinical Psychologist, License No. PSY 24891, of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 420, Encino, CA 91436, is hereby appointed as the child custody evaluator in this matter pursuant to California Family Code §§ 3110 and 3111 and California Evidence Code § 730. Dr. Sorensen shall serve as an expert of t

2. Scope of Evaluation. The scope of the evaluation shall be as set forth in Section C (Paragraphs 13 and 14) of the parties' Stipulation, which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. The Evaluator shall address all issues identified therein and make recommendations to the Court regarding legal custody, physical custody, timeshare scheduling, and any other matters relevant to the best i

3. Cooperation of the Parties. Both Petitioner, Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, and Respondent, Rafael Joaquín Medrano, shall fully cooperate with the Evaluator throughout the evaluation process, as set forth in Section D (Paragraphs 15 through 18) of the parties' Stipulation. Failure by either party to cooperate with the Evaluator may result in the imposition of sanctions, adverse evidentiary inferences, or such other

4. Communication Protocol. The communication protocol set forth in Section E (Paragraphs 19 through 21) of the Stipulation shall govern all communications between the parties, their counsel, Minor's Counsel, and the Evaluator. No party or counsel shall engage in prohibited ex parte communications with the Evaluator regarding the substance of the evaluation.

5. Fees. The Evaluator's fee for the custody evaluation shall be Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($18,500.00), to be split equally between the parties, with each party responsible for Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($9,250.00). Initial retainer payments shall be due from each party within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this Order, paid directly to Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. An

6. Report and Timeline. The Evaluator shall deliver her written report to counsel for Petitioner (Calderwood & Harkness LLP), counsel for Respondent (Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP), and Minor's Counsel (Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq.) within approximately twelve (12) weeks of the commencement of the evaluation, or as soon as practicable thereafter.

7. Confidentiality. The Evaluator's written report, together with all underlying notes, records, test data, and evaluation materials, shall be treated as confidential and shall be subject to the sealing order entered or to be entered in this matter pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. The report shall not be disclosed to any third party except as permitted by law, the California Rules of Court, o

8. Testimony. In the event this matter proceeds to a contested hearing, the Evaluator may be called to testify regarding her findings and recommendations. The cost of the Evaluator's testimony, including preparation time and court appearance time, shall be borne equally by the parties unless otherwise ordered by this Court.

9. Minor's Counsel. Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (SBN 267894), shall be available for consultation with the Evaluator and shall facilitate the Evaluator's access to the Minor Children as appropriate, consistent with her duties under California Family Code § 3150.

10. Continued Jurisdiction. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify, amend, or supplement this Order as circumstances may require, including but not limited to resolving any disputes regarding the evaluation process, the allocation of fees, or the scope of the evaluation.

11. Advisory Nature of Report. The Evaluator's report and recommendations shall be advisory only. The Court retains ultimate authority over all custody and visitation determinations in the best interests of the Minor Children under California Family Code § 3011 et seq. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: ________ ________________________________________ HON. PATRICIA S. YAMAMOTO Judge of the Superior Court County of Los Angeles