1035-00002 · Calderwood & Harkness LLP · Internal Memoranda & Analyses

analysis-custody-evaluation-report.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

14 / 36 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

TO: Priya Anand, Partner

FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate

DATE: October 13, 2023

RE: Analysis of Custody Evaluation Report — Fonseca v. Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

MATTER NO.: 1035-00002

CLIENT: Marguerite D. Fonseca

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the custody evaluation report prepared by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. The report was delivered to counsel for both parties and to Minor's Counsel on October 6, 2023, pursuant to the stipulation and order entered by the court on July 14, 2023. This memo identifies the report's key findings, assesses their impact on our client's litigation and settlement posture, and offers strategy recommendations ahead of the anticipated mediation before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.

Overall Assessment. The evaluation report is generally favorable to Ms. Fonseca's position on the central issues in dispute — namely, primary physical custody and the structure of joint legal custody. Dr. Sorensen's findings confirm Ms. Fonseca's status as the children's primary caretaker, acknowledge the stability and suitability of her home environment, and credit her willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. The psychological testing of Ms. Fonseca produced no clinical concerns of any kind. At the same time, the report contains certain findings — principally regarding a perceived risk of gatekeeping behavior and the demands of Ms. Fonseca's work schedule — that will require careful navigation in mediation and, if necessary, in any contested hearing.

Recommendations. Dr. Sorensen recommends joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca, a school-year timeshare arrangement in the range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and 35–40% to Mr. Medrano, and a more equal summer split of approximately 50/50. This recommendation is largely consistent with the custodial arrangement our client has sought from the outset of this matter. The evaluator further recommends tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca limited to educational decisions, the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator, co-parenting counseling for both parties, and a structured protocol for extended work-related absences by either parent.

Based on this analysis, I recommend that we proceed to mediation before Hon. Yee with confidence. However, we should adjust certain elements of our strategy — most notably, narrowing the scope of the requested tie-breaking authority and proactively addressing the evaluator's gatekeeping concern — to maximize the likelihood of a favorable stipulated agreement. The detailed strategy recommendations are set forth in Section XII below.

II. Background and Procedural History

This section provides relevant background and a summary of the procedural history necessary to contextualize the custody evaluation and this analysis.

Domestic Partnership and Children. Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Rafael J. Medrano registered a domestic partnership in the State of California on September 12, 2015 (California Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741). During the partnership, the parties had two children:

• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently age 6; and

• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, currently age 4.

Both children are enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a private K–8 school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Isabela is in the first grade and Mateo is enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program.

Dissolution. The domestic partnership was dissolved by judgment entered on November 3, 2022, in Case No. 22STFL09847, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Department 12. The dissolution judgment resolved property division issues but reserved all matters relating to child custody, visitation, and child support for future determination. Following the dissolution, the parties operated under an informal custody arrangement that was not reduced to a court order.

Breakdown of Informal Arrangement. The informal custody arrangement broke down in early 2023 when Mr. Medrano accepted a seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, through his production entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC. Mr. Medrano departed for Vancouver in approximately mid-January 2023 and did not return to the Los Angeles area until early March 2023. During this period, Ms. Fonseca assumed essentially all parenting responsibilities for both children, with only limited and sporadic involvement from Mr. Medrano via video calls. This event was the proximate catalyst for the formal custody proceedings that followed.

Retention of Counsel and RFO. Ms. Fonseca retained Calderwood & Harkness LLP on April 18, 2023. On May 2, 2023, this firm filed a Request for Order on behalf of Ms. Fonseca, seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca on all major decisions, and guideline child support.

Temporary Custody Order. Following a hearing on May 30, 2023, the court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceedings. The temporary order provided for alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. to Mr. Medrano, one midweek overnight on Wednesdays to Mr. Medrano, and all remaining time to Ms. Fonseca. The temporary order has been in effect since that date and has been generally adhered to by both parties, with minor scheduling adjustments.

Minor's Counsel. On June 22, 2023, the court appointed Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894) as counsel for the minor children pursuant to Family Code § 3150. Ms. Brannigan's appointment was made on the court's own motion, based on the court's determination that the interests of the children warranted independent representation given the nature of the dispute and the children's ages. Ms. Brannigan has conducted her own investigation, including meetings with both parents and visits with the children, but has not yet taken a formal position on the custody and visitation issues. We anticipate she will do so following her review of the evaluation report.

Custody Evaluation. On July 14, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation, which was adopted as an order of the court, providing for the appointment of a private custody evaluator pursuant to Evidence Code § 730. Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., was selected by agreement of the parties and counsel. The stipulation provided that the evaluation fee of $18,500 would be split equally between the parties, with each party responsible for $9,250. Both parties have paid their respective shares. Dr. Sorensen commenced her evaluation in late July 2023 and delivered her written report to all counsel and to Minor's Counsel on October 6, 2023.

III. Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation

Dr. Sorensen's report describes her methodology in detail in Section II of the evaluation (pp. 3–7). The following summarizes the key components of her evaluation process as reported:

Individual Clinical Interviews with the Parents. Dr. Sorensen conducted two individual clinical interview sessions with each parent. The sessions with Ms. Fonseca took place on August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023, and lasted approximately 2.5 hours each. The sessions with Mr. Medrano took place on August 7, 2023, and August 21, 2023, and also lasted approximately 2.5 hours each. During these interviews, Dr. Sorensen explored each parent's personal and family history, the history of the domestic partnership and its dissolution, each parent's perception of the co-parenting relationship, each parent's parenting practices and philosophy, and each parent's proposals for the custodial arrangement.

Parent-Child Observations. Dr. Sorensen conducted observed interactions between each parent and both children in the respective parent's home. The observation of Ms. Fonseca with the children took place on September 2, 2023, and lasted approximately three hours. The observation of Mr. Medrano with the children took place on September 9, 2023, and lasted approximately three hours. During these sessions, Dr. Sorensen observed the parent and children engaging in routine activities including meals, playtime, and homework (for Isabela).

Home Visits. As part of the parent-child observations, Dr. Sorensen conducted environmental assessments of both residences:

• Ms. Fonseca's residence: 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. This is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom condominium unit of approximately 1,850 square feet. Each child has a dedicated bedroom, and there is a separate play/study area.

• Mr. Medrano's residence: 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602. This is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment of approximately 1,050 square feet. The children share a bedroom. The apartment is clean and in adequate condition but is significantly smaller than Ms. Fonseca's residence.

Interviews with the Children. Dr. Sorensen conducted an individual interview with Isabela (age 6) using an age-appropriate, play-based assessment methodology. This interview took place on September 16, 2023, at Dr. Sorensen's office and lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mateo (age 4) was observed during the parent-child interaction sessions but was not individually interviewed; Dr. Sorensen noted in the report that Mateo's age rendered him too young for a substantive individual interview and that meaningful preference data could not be elicited from a child of his developmental stage.

Collateral Contacts. Dr. Sorensen contacted the following collateral sources:

• Ridgeview Academy: Dr. Sorensen spoke with Ms. Carolyn Hightower, Director of Lower School; Ms. Janet Rios, Isabela's first-grade teacher; and Ms. Andrea Foy, Pre-K teacher for Mateo. School personnel were asked about each parent's involvement in the children's education, the children's academic performance and social adjustment, and any concerns regarding the children's well-being.

• Dr. David Reiss, M.D., the children's pediatrician, was contacted regarding the children's health, developmental status, and each parent's involvement in medical care.

• Each parent provided three personal references, all of whom were contacted by Dr. Sorensen.

Document Review. Dr. Sorensen reviewed the following documents as part of her evaluation: the dissolution judgment entered November 3, 2022; the Request for Order filed May 2, 2023, and the responsive declaration; the temporary custody order entered May 30, 2023; selected court filings and declarations from the file; and correspondence provided by each party.

Psychological Testing. Both parents completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Testing was administered at Dr. Sorensen's office on separate dates. The results for each parent are discussed in the respective sections below.

Note on Report Length and Scope of This Memo. The evaluation report is approximately 47 pages of narrative text plus appendices containing the psychological testing results, collateral contact summaries, and supporting documentation. This memorandum does not attempt to summarize every finding in the report. Rather, it focuses on the substantive findings and recommendations that bear most directly on the legal and strategic issues in this matter.

IV. Favorable Findings for Ms. Fonseca

The evaluation report contains numerous findings that support Ms. Fonseca's position on the primary issues in dispute. The most significant of these are discussed below.

A. Primary Caretaker Status

Dr. Sorensen's report identifies Ms. Fonseca as the primary caretaker throughout the children's lives. The evaluator found, based on interviews with both parents, the collateral contacts, and the documentary record, that Ms. Fonseca has been responsible for the substantial majority of day-to-day parenting tasks and decisions since the children's births. Specifically, the evaluator found that Ms. Fonseca has been the parent primarily responsible for:

• Enrolling both children at Ridgeview Academy and managing all aspects of their school participation, including parent-teacher conferences, school events, and communication with teachers and administrators;

• Scheduling and attending the children's medical and dental appointments, maintaining vaccination and health records, and managing any illness or health-related issues;

• Coordinating the children's extracurricular activities, including Isabela's participation in a weekly art class and a Saturday morning soccer program;

• Supervising Isabela's homework and reading assignments;

• Managing the children's daily routines, including morning preparation for school, meals, bedtime routines, and weekend activities; and

• Arranging childcare coverage when neither parent was available, including vetting and retaining a regular nanny (Ms. Gloria Sandoval) who assists during peak work periods.

This finding was corroborated by the Ridgeview Academy collateral contacts. Ms. Hightower, the Director of Lower School, confirmed to Dr. Sorensen that Ms. Fonseca is the parent who is "consistently in communication with the school" and who attends virtually all school events and conferences. Ms. Rios, Isabela's teacher, described Ms. Fonseca as "extremely involved" in Isabela's education. Dr. Reiss, the children's pediatrician, similarly confirmed that Ms. Fonseca is the parent who typically schedules appointments and accompanies the children to medical visits.

The evaluator further noted the significance of Ms. Fonseca's employment stability in this context. Ms. Fonseca holds the position of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development, at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a major entertainment company headquartered in Burbank, California. While her position is demanding and carries significant responsibility — she oversees approximately 18 original series in various stages of development and production — it is an office-based role with a generally predictable weekday schedule. This stands in contrast to Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career, which requires frequent and sometimes extended travel to shooting locations. The evaluator concluded that Ms. Fonseca's more predictable schedule, combined with her demonstrated track record as the primary day-to-day parent, supports a custodial arrangement in which the children's primary residence is with Ms. Fonseca.

This finding is of considerable importance to our case. Under California law, the court is required to consider the best interests of the children in making custody determinations (Family Code § 3011), and the identity and involvement of the primary caretaker is a well-established factor in that analysis. The evaluator's unequivocal finding on this point provides a strong evidentiary foundation for Ms. Fonseca's request for primary physical custody.

B. Home Environment and Stability

Dr. Sorensen's assessment of Ms. Fonseca's Studio City residence was uniformly positive. The report describes the home as "well-organized, clean, and thoughtfully arranged with the children's needs in mind." The evaluator noted that each child has a dedicated bedroom that is age-appropriately furnished and decorated, and that there is a separate play and study area in the home. The evaluator observed that the children's artwork, school projects, and photographs were prominently displayed throughout the home, reflecting an environment that centers the children's presence and activities.

Critically, the evaluator emphasized the continuity and stability associated with Ms. Fonseca's residence. The children have lived primarily at this address throughout the post-separation period, and the home is in close proximity to Ridgeview Academy, the children's pediatrician, and their extracurricular activity locations. The evaluator observed that the children appear well-settled in this environment and that their social connections — friendships with neighborhood children, familiarity with the local community — are centered around Ms. Fonseca's home. This finding aligns with the well-established principle that continuity and stability are paramount considerations in custody determinations, particularly for children of Isabela's and Mateo's ages.

C. Co-Parenting Disposition

Dr. Sorensen described Ms. Fonseca as demonstrating a genuine willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. The evaluator noted that during interviews, Ms. Fonseca repeatedly expressed her belief that both children benefit from a meaningful relationship with their father and that she wants the children to have consistent, quality time with Mr. Medrano. Ms. Fonseca articulated a preference for a structured, court-ordered parenting plan — rather than a continuation of the informal arrangement — precisely because she believes a clear framework will reduce conflict and provide the predictability that serves the children's interests.

The evaluator further noted that Ms. Fonseca's behavior during the observed parent-child interaction was consistent with this expressed willingness. During the observation session at Ms. Fonseca's home, the children made reference to activities with their father, and Ms. Fonseca responded positively and encouragingly. The evaluator observed no evidence of Ms. Fonseca discouraging or undermining the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano during the observed interaction.

This finding is important because it directly addresses one of the statutory factors under Family Code § 3040(a)(1), which provides that the court shall consider which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent. While the evaluator did flag certain concerns in this area (discussed in Section V.A below), the overall finding is that Ms. Fonseca is disposed to facilitating co-parenting, which supports her position as the primary custodial parent.

D. Children's Attachment and Adjustment

The evaluator's observations of both children were generally positive across both households. However, the report contains several findings specific to Ms. Fonseca's home that are particularly favorable.

With respect to Isabela (age 6), Dr. Sorensen described her as a "bright, articulate, and socially adept child" who is performing at or above grade level at Ridgeview Academy. During the observed interaction at Ms. Fonseca's home, Isabela demonstrated a secure attachment to her mother, engaging in relaxed and affectionate exchanges, seeking and accepting physical comfort, and displaying confidence in exploring activities independently while remaining connected to Ms. Fonseca. The evaluator noted that Isabela appeared comfortable managing her homework routine with Ms. Fonseca's supervision and guidance, suggesting a well-established educational partnership between mother and daughter.

With respect to Mateo (age 4), the evaluator observed that he appeared comfortable, settled, and at ease in Ms. Fonseca's home. Mateo demonstrated age-appropriate developmental milestones, including language development, fine and gross motor skills, and social engagement. The evaluator noted that Mateo displayed secure attachment behaviors toward Ms. Fonseca, including seeking proximity during moments of uncertainty and using Ms. Fonseca as a "home base" during play.

These attachment findings are consistent with Ms. Fonseca's primary caretaker role and reinforce the appropriateness of designating her home as the children's primary residence.

E. Psychological Testing

Ms. Fonseca completed the MMPI-2 and PAI on August 25, 2023, at Dr. Sorensen's office. The evaluator reported that Ms. Fonseca's profiles on both instruments were within normal limits, with no clinically elevated scales suggesting personality pathology, psychopathology, substance abuse or dependence, or deception. The evaluator described Ms. Fonseca's test-taking approach as "forthcoming and cooperative," with validity scales indicating a "candid and non-defensive response style." The absence of any clinical concerns on the psychological testing eliminates what could otherwise be a significant vulnerability for our client, and it allows us to present Ms. Fonseca's psychological fitness as an affirmative point in mediation or at hearing.

V. Unfavorable or Cautionary Findings for Ms. Fonseca

While the evaluation report is, on balance, favorable to our client, it contains several findings that present risks and that opposing counsel will undoubtedly seek to exploit. We must address each of these findings proactively.

A. Risk of Marginalization of Father's Role

This is the most significant area of concern in the evaluation from our client's perspective. Dr. Sorensen noted that Ms. Fonseca, at times during the individual clinical interviews, minimized Mr. Medrano's parenting contributions and expressed frustration about his career choices in a manner that the evaluator characterized as having the potential, "if unchecked," to "evolve into gatekeeping behavior that could undermine the children's relationship with their father." The evaluator cited specific instances:

• During the August 4, 2023 interview, Ms. Fonseca reportedly stated that Mr. Medrano "doesn't really understand what it takes to keep things running for the kids" and characterized his parenting as "fun but not substantive." While the evaluator acknowledged that some frustration is understandable given the circumstances, she noted that these characterizations did not fully credit Mr. Medrano's genuine engagement with the children, as observed by the evaluator and reported by collateral contacts.

• During the August 18, 2023 interview, Ms. Fonseca reiterated her request for tie-breaking authority on "all major decisions" — including healthcare, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities, in addition to educational decisions. The evaluator found that this request, if granted in its full scope, could effectively reduce Mr. Medrano to a secondary or consultative role in the children's lives, which the evaluator cautioned would not serve the children's best interests. The evaluator specifically stated that "while Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated competence in managing the children's lives is commendable, the breadth of tie-breaking authority she seeks is inconsistent with a genuine joint legal custody arrangement."

Strategy Note. This finding will almost certainly be highlighted by opposing counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, in any mediation brief or court filing. Ms. Kwan will use this language to paint Ms. Fonseca as seeking to marginalize Mr. Medrano's role in the children's lives. To mitigate this risk, I recommend that we narrow the tie-breaking authority request to educational decisions only, which is the one area where the evaluator appeared willing to support such authority given Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated primary role in managing the children's education. This concession costs little in practical terms — Ms. Fonseca's principal concern is maintaining educational continuity at Ridgeview Academy and control over decisions such as tutoring and potential special education services — and it aligns our position with the evaluator's recommendation, which will carry significant weight with the mediator and, if necessary, with the court. The detailed strategy recommendation on this point is set forth in Section XII.A below.

B. Income Disparity and Children's Standard of Living

The evaluator observed that there is a significant income disparity between the parties. Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is approximately $870,000, inclusive of base salary, annual bonus, and equity compensation. Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC have averaged approximately $340,000 over the preceding three years, though with substantial year-to-year variability. This disparity is reflected in the children's living environments: Ms. Fonseca's three-bedroom Studio City condominium is larger, more comfortable, and better-appointed than Mr. Medrano's two-bedroom North Hollywood apartment.

While the evaluator did not treat this disparity as directly unfavorable to Ms. Fonseca — indeed, the larger and more stable home is an advantage in the physical custody analysis — she did note that the disparity could become a factor in two respects. First, Mr. Medrano may argue that a more equal timeshare, combined with adequate child support, would allow him to provide a more comparable living environment, thereby promoting the children's comfort and consistency across both households. Second, the evaluator observed that the children are "accustomed to a standard of living that reflects Ms. Fonseca's higher income" and that any custody arrangement should account for the importance of maintaining a reasonably consistent experience for the children in both homes.

This finding is not directly adverse to Ms. Fonseca's custody position, but it has implications for the child support analysis and may be leveraged by Mr. Medrano and KD&S to argue for higher child support or for contribution orders (e.g., requiring Ms. Fonseca to contribute to upgrading Mr. Medrano's housing). The interplay between this finding and the child support posture is discussed further in Section XI below.

C. Work Schedule Concerns

The evaluator noted that Ms. Fonseca's role at Luminos Entertainment Group, overseeing approximately 18 original series, can entail extended evening and weekend work commitments during production cycles, including upfront season launches, pilot reviews, and network scheduling periods. Ms. Fonseca acknowledged during her interviews that she relies on childcare assistance from Ms. Gloria Sandoval during these peak periods. The evaluator credited Ms. Fonseca with having established reliable childcare arrangements but noted that "any custody arrangement should account for the reality that Ms. Fonseca's work demands may periodically require her to delegate daily caregiving tasks, and a right-of-first-refusal provision would ensure that the children's father is given the opportunity to provide care during these times before a third-party caregiver is utilized."

This finding presents a tactical risk. Mr. Medrano and KD&S can be expected to argue that if Ms. Fonseca is unavailable during substantial portions of her custodial time, a closer-to-equal timeshare is warranted, or, at minimum, that Mr. Medrano should receive additional custodial time during Ms. Fonseca's peak production periods. We should preemptively address this concern by incorporating a right-of-first-refusal provision into our parenting plan proposal, as the evaluator recommends, and by framing Ms. Fonseca's work arrangements as demonstrating responsible planning — not as evidence of unavailability. The strategy recommendation on this point is set forth in Sections XII.D and XII.E below.

VI. Findings Regarding Mr. Medrano

A balanced assessment of the evaluation requires an understanding of the evaluator's findings regarding Mr. Medrano, as both his strengths and weaknesses inform our strategy.

A. Positive Findings

The evaluator's assessment of Mr. Medrano as a parent is generally positive, and we should not underestimate the weight that his strengths may carry in mediation or at hearing. Specifically:

Dr. Sorensen described Mr. Medrano as "a loving, engaged father with a warm, playful, and physically active parenting style." During the observed parent-child interaction at Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood apartment on September 9, 2023, the evaluator observed Mr. Medrano engaging both children in creative play, including a collaborative art project and an outdoor excursion to a nearby park. Isabela, in particular, was observed to be animated and enthusiastic during time with her father, and she expressed enjoyment of their shared activities during her individual interview with the evaluator.

Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood apartment, while smaller and less well-appointed than Ms. Fonseca's residence, was assessed as adequate and child-appropriate. The evaluator noted that the children's shared bedroom was organized with each child's belongings, and that Mr. Medrano had made reasonable efforts to create a welcoming environment for the children within the constraints of his living space. The evaluator did not find the home environment to be deficient or unsuitable for custodial purposes.

Mr. Medrano's psychological testing (MMPI-2 and PAI) produced no clinical concerns. His profiles were within normal limits, with no elevated scales suggesting personality pathology, substance issues, or deception. The validity scales indicated a candid response style. This result eliminates the possibility of leveraging psychological fitness as a differentiating factor between the parties.

Mr. Medrano expressed to the evaluator a strong desire for increased custodial time with the children and articulated concrete plans for managing his freelance cinematography schedule around the children's needs. He stated that he has begun to limit his acceptance of out-of-town assignments and that he intends to prioritize projects in the greater Los Angeles area. The evaluator acknowledged these stated intentions but, as discussed below, expressed reservations about their reliability given Mr. Medrano's track record.

B. Negative or Concerning Findings

Despite the positive assessment of Mr. Medrano's parenting qualities, the evaluation report identifies several significant concerns that substantially weaken his position on the custodial issues.

Work Travel and Custodial Consistency. The evaluator identified Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career as "the most significant concern regarding his ability to maintain a consistent and reliable custodial schedule." Mr. Medrano operates through Medrano Visuals, LLC, and his work frequently requires on-location shoots of varying duration and in varying locations, both domestically and internationally. The seven-week Vancouver shoot in early 2023 was cited by the evaluator as "emblematic of the challenge" — a lengthy absence during which Mr. Medrano was effectively unavailable for in-person parenting.

The evaluator found that during the Vancouver absence, Mr. Medrano made "limited and inadequate arrangements for substitute care." He did not arrange for a family member or trusted caregiver to exercise custodial time on his behalf, nor did he make formal arrangements with Ms. Fonseca to temporarily adjust the custodial schedule. Instead, the informal arrangement simply collapsed, with Ms. Fonseca absorbing essentially 100% of the parenting burden for the seven-week duration. The evaluator noted that this pattern — of accepting work assignments without adequately planning for the children's care — raises legitimate concerns about the reliability of Mr. Medrano's custodial time, regardless of his stated intentions to change his behavior.

Income Variability. The evaluator observed that Mr. Medrano's freelance income is inherently variable and project-dependent. While his three-year average earnings of approximately $340,000 per year are substantial, the evaluator noted fluctuations from year to year and expressed concern that financial pressures could incentivize Mr. Medrano to accept extended on-location assignments, thereby perpetuating the inconsistency that has been problematic. This finding supports the argument that Mr. Medrano's financial circumstances are less stable than Ms. Fonseca's and that a custody arrangement should include structural safeguards to protect the children's routine when Mr. Medrano accepts out-of-town work.

Acknowledgment of Impact. Perhaps most significantly from a litigation perspective, Dr. Sorensen observed that Mr. Medrano, during his clinical interviews, "displayed some difficulty acknowledging the practical impact his travel schedule has on the children's routine." The evaluator reported that when confronted with the logistics of his work schedule, Mr. Medrano tended to "frame Ms. Fonseca's concerns as controlling or adversarial rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns." The evaluator characterized this as a "lack of insight" that, "if it persists, could impede effective co-parenting and suggest that Mr. Medrano may not fully appreciate the need for predictability and consistency in the children's lives."

This finding is significant because it undermines Mr. Medrano's credibility on the key factual question in this case: whether he can reliably maintain a custodial schedule. It also serves as an effective counterpoint to the gatekeeping concern raised about Ms. Fonseca — to the extent Ms. Fonseca has expressed frustration about Mr. Medrano's career choices, the evaluator appears to acknowledge that those concerns have a legitimate basis. We should leverage this finding in our mediation brief and presentations.

VII. Children's Expressed Preferences

Dr. Sorensen's report addresses the children's expressed preferences, to the extent they could be assessed given the children's ages.

Isabela (age 6). Isabela was interviewed individually by Dr. Sorensen on September 16, 2023, using age-appropriate, play-based assessment techniques. The evaluator reported that Isabela expressed love for both parents and did not state a preference for living with one parent over the other. However, several themes emerged from the interview that are relevant to our analysis:

• Isabela stated that she likes her school (Ridgeview Academy), her teachers, and her friends in the neighborhood near Ms. Fonseca's home. She described her daily routine in a way that reflects familiarity and comfort with the structure Ms. Fonseca has established.

• Isabela said she misses her father when he is away for work and expressed the wish that he "didn't have to go so far." The evaluator interpreted this as reflecting Isabela's awareness of and sensitivity to her father's absences, and noted that it underscores the importance of a custodial arrangement that provides predictable and reliable time with Mr. Medrano.

• Isabela expressed a general desire for "things to stay the same" and for there to be a predictable schedule. The evaluator interpreted this as a preference for routine and stability, which is developmentally appropriate for a child of her age.

Mateo (age 4). The evaluator did not conduct a formal interview with Mateo due to his age. Mateo was observed during the parent-child observation sessions at both homes. The evaluator reported that Mateo appeared comfortable and at ease with both parents and displayed no signs of distress, anxiety, or discomfort with either parent. No meaningful preference could be elicited from a child of Mateo's developmental stage.

Legal Significance. The evaluator noted that under California Family Code § 3042, the court may consider the wishes of a child and give them appropriate weight in light of the child's age and capacity. Given Isabela's age of six, her expressed preferences may be considered by the court but are not determinative. Mateo's age precludes any weight being given to an expressed preference. The evaluator's characterization of Isabela's statements as reflecting a desire for stability and predictability — rather than a preference for one parent — supports our framing of the case as one in which the children's need for consistency favors the custodial arrangement Ms. Fonseca has proposed.

VIII. Dr. Sorensen's Recommendations

Dr. Sorensen's recommendations are set forth in Section VIII of the evaluation report (pp. 38–44). The key recommendations are summarized and analyzed below.

A. Legal Custody

Dr. Sorensen recommends joint legal custody. She does not recommend sole legal custody to either parent, finding that both parents are capable of participating in major decisions regarding the children's welfare and that the children's interests are best served by a joint legal custody arrangement.

However, the evaluator does recommend that Ms. Fonseca be granted tie-breaking authority — limited to educational decisions — in the event the parties are unable to reach agreement on a specific educational issue. The evaluator defined "educational decisions" as including school enrollment and changes in school placement, tutoring and supplemental educational services, special education assessments and services, and educational accommodations. The evaluator grounded this recommendation in Ms. Fonseca's "demonstrated primary role in managing the children's education, her established relationship with the children's school, and the particular importance of educational continuity for both children at this stage of their development."

For all other major decisions — including healthcare decisions, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities exceeding a reasonable cost threshold (which the evaluator suggested be defined in the parenting plan) — the evaluator recommends that the parties be required to reach mutual agreement, with mediation serving as the dispute resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse. The evaluator specifically declined to recommend tie-breaking authority on these issues, stating that "granting one parent unilateral decision-making authority on the full spectrum of major decisions would be inconsistent with a genuine joint legal custody arrangement and could engender resentment and disengagement by the other parent."

Analysis. This recommendation is partially favorable to our client. The evaluator supports the educational tie-breaking authority Ms. Fonseca has sought, which is the most practically significant component of the request. The evaluator's refusal to extend tie-breaking authority to all major decisions is a setback, but as discussed in Section XII.A below, I recommend that we accept this narrower formulation — it is defensible and aligns our position with the evaluator's findings.

B. Physical Custody and Timeshare

Dr. Sorensen recommends joint physical custody with the primary residence designated as Ms. Fonseca's Studio City home. This recommendation is based on Ms. Fonseca's primary caretaker status, the stability and continuity of the children's current living arrangement, the children's established community and school connections, and the comparative predictability of Ms. Fonseca's work schedule.

The evaluator recommends a school-year timeshare in the range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and 35–40% to Mr. Medrano. The evaluator stated that the precise allocation within this range should be "contingent on Mr. Medrano's demonstrated ability to maintain a consistent and reliable schedule" and suggested that the parenting plan include provisions for adjusting the timeshare if Mr. Medrano's work-travel patterns render him unavailable during his scheduled custodial time.

For the summer break period, which the evaluator estimated at approximately 10 weeks (70 days), the evaluator recommends a 50/50 split, providing approximately 35 overnights to each parent. The evaluator reasoned that the summer period — when school is not in session and the children's need for routine is somewhat reduced — affords an opportunity for both children to spend extended, uninterrupted time with Mr. Medrano.

The evaluator further recommends that any extended travel for work purposes by either parent that exceeds 14 consecutive days should trigger a temporary custodial transfer to the other parent, with structured make-up time to be exercised within a reasonable period (the evaluator suggested 60 days). This recommendation applies reciprocally to both parents, though the evaluator noted that it is most practically relevant to Mr. Medrano's work pattern.

Analysis. This recommendation is highly favorable to our client and falls squarely within the timeshare range we have been targeting. The 60–65% school-year allocation to Ms. Fonseca, combined with the 50/50 summer split, produces an annual timeshare that is consistent with our target of approximately 63.6% Fonseca / 36.4% Medrano. The work-travel provision is particularly valuable, as it provides a structural mechanism for addressing the very issue that precipitated this dispute.

C. Transition and Parenting Coordination

The evaluator recommends the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist with transitions, scheduling disputes, and implementation issues during the first 12–18 months following entry of the custody order. The evaluator noted that the parties' communication has been strained and that a neutral professional can help facilitate the practical logistics of the parenting plan, particularly during the initial transition period. The evaluator did not recommend a specific coordinator but suggested that the parties select one by agreement or, if unable to agree, that the court appoint one.

The evaluator also recommends specific pick-up and drop-off protocols to minimize conflict during custodial transitions. The evaluator observed that transitions between homes can be a source of stress for children, particularly when parental conflict is present, and recommended that transitions occur at a neutral location (such as the children's school) whenever possible to reduce the potential for conflict.

D. Other Recommendations

The evaluator made several additional recommendations:

• Educational Continuity. The evaluator recommends that both children remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy to maintain educational continuity and stability. The evaluator noted that any change in school placement would be disruptive to both children and should be avoided absent a compelling reason.

• Co-Parenting Counseling. The evaluator recommends that both parents participate in co-parenting counseling with a licensed therapist for a minimum of six months. The evaluator noted that while the parties' co-parenting relationship is not characterized by extreme conflict, there are communication challenges and mutual frustrations that could benefit from professional guidance. The evaluator specifically recommended that counseling focus on communication strategies, role clarity, and developing shared parenting expectations.

• Right of First Refusal. The evaluator recommends that the parenting plan include a right-of-first-refusal provision requiring each parent to offer the other parent the opportunity to care for the children before engaging a third-party caregiver when the custodial parent will be unavailable for a specified number of consecutive hours. The evaluator did not specify the exact threshold but suggested it be "reasonable in light of both parents' work schedules."

IX. Comparison of Evaluation Recommendations to Client's Position

The following table compares the evaluator's recommendations to our client's pre-evaluation position on each major issue:

As the table illustrates, the evaluator's recommendations align with our client's position on the most significant issues — physical custody designation, timeshare range, summer schedule, and the on-location work provision. The only area of meaningful divergence is the scope of tie-breaking authority, where the evaluator recommends a narrower grant than our client initially sought. The additional recommendations (parenting coordinator, co-parenting counseling, right of first refusal) were not part of our initial proposal but are consistent with our client's interests and should be adopted, both because they serve the children's well-being and because embracing the evaluator's recommendations demonstrates reasonableness and good faith.

X. Assessment of Impact on Opposing Party's Position

We should anticipate the arguments that Mr. Medrano and his counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, will make in response to the evaluation report. Based on our analysis, KD&S is likely to emphasize the following points:

Positive Assessment of Mr. Medrano as a Parent. The evaluator's description of Mr. Medrano as a loving, engaged father with a warm parenting style provides KD&S with affirmative evidence to support a request for greater custodial time. The finding that Isabela expressed missing her father when he is away will likely be cited prominently to argue that the children's emotional needs require more time with Mr. Medrano than the evaluator has recommended, or at least the maximum end of the evaluator's recommended range (i.e., 40% rather than 35%).

Gatekeeping Concern. KD&S will undoubtedly seize upon the evaluator's finding regarding the potential for gatekeeping behavior by Ms. Fonseca. We should expect this language to appear in the opposing mediation brief and to be raised directly with Hon. Yee. KD&S will use this finding to argue for broader shared decision-making authority and to resist any form of tie-breaking authority, or alternatively, to seek reciprocal tie-breaking provisions.

Work-Schedule Concern. The evaluator's observation regarding Ms. Fonseca's periodic extended work hours will be leveraged by KD&S to argue either for a closer-to-equal timeshare or for a flexible provision that awards Mr. Medrano additional custodial time during Ms. Fonseca's peak production periods. KD&S may frame this as: if Ms. Fonseca is delegating childcare to a nanny during her custodial time, the children would be better served by being with their father.

Income Disparity. KD&S will likely use the evaluator's acknowledgment of the income disparity to support a request for higher child support and/or contribution orders that would allow Mr. Medrano to improve his living situation, thereby ostensibly equalizing the children's experience in both homes.

Our Counter-Position. Despite these arguments, Mr. Medrano's position is significantly weakened by the evaluator's findings regarding his work-travel patterns and the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement in early 2023. The evaluator's characterization of the Vancouver absence as "emblematic" of the problem, and her finding that Mr. Medrano displayed a "lack of insight" regarding the impact of his travel on the children's routine, directly undercuts his credibility on the central custodial question. Moreover, the evaluator's recommendation of primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca — the single most important finding in the report — effectively resolves the core dispute in our client's favor. Mr. Medrano's strongest argument is for the upper end of the evaluator's timeshare range, but even that outcome (60/40 rather than 65/35) would be acceptable to our client and within our target parameters.

XI. Impact on Child Support Posture

The evaluator's timeshare recommendation has direct implications for the child support calculation under California's guideline formula. The following analysis should be read in conjunction with the detailed guideline analysis memorandum prepared by Nadia Petrov, dated May 15, 2023.

Timeshare Input. The evaluator's recommended timeshare range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca during the school year, combined with a 50/50 summer split, is consistent with our target of approximately 63.6% annual timeshare to Ms. Fonseca, which translates to approximately 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano annually. This timeshare percentage is a key input to the DissoMaster guideline calculation.

Guideline Calculation. Per the Petrov guideline analysis memo, at a 63.6/36.4 timeshare split, with Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income of approximately $72,500 and Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income of approximately $28,333 (based on a three-year average and the forensic analysis performed by Harold K. Yamamoto of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP), the parties' combined gross monthly income is approximately $100,833. Under these inputs, the DissoMaster guideline child support amount is approximately $1,274 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This reflects the statutory formula's recognition of the income disparity between the parties and the timeshare allocation.

Potential Deviation. If we pursue a downward deviation from the guideline amount, the evaluator's recommendation that the parties share extracurricular costs and that each parent bear certain child-related expenses during their respective custodial time could provide a basis for arguing that a below-guideline amount is appropriate when considered in combination with add-on cost-sharing obligations. Specifically, if Mr. Medrano is receiving a substantial share of the children's extracurricular and activity costs directly (rather than as a component of support), a modest downward deviation from the guideline amount may be defensible.

Cross-References. The child support analysis should be coordinated with the income imputation memorandum prepared by Petrov (dated June 30, 2023), which addresses the characterization of Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC and the forensic analysis conducted by Yamamoto. The income imputation issue may become contentious, as KD&S may argue for a lower imputed income for Mr. Medrano (thereby increasing the guideline support obligation) or, conversely, for a higher income for Ms. Fonseca based on the inclusion of equity compensation and other benefits.

I will coordinate with Nadia Petrov to update the child support calculations to reflect the proposed 232/133 overnight timeshare and to prepare alternative scenarios at different timeshare allocations within the evaluator's recommended range.

XII. Strategy Recommendations Ahead of Mediation

Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the following strategic adjustments and action items in preparation for the mediation before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.

A. Adjust Tie-Breaking Authority Request

I recommend that we narrow the tie-breaking authority request from all major decisions to educational decisions only, consistent with the evaluator's recommendation. This adjustment is strategically sound for several reasons. First, educational decisions are the area of greatest practical significance to Ms. Fonseca — her principal concern is maintaining Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy and retaining control over educational placement and services. Second, the evaluator explicitly supported tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, meaning our position will be backed by the evaluator's professional opinion. Third, by narrowing the request, we deprive KD&S of the argument that Ms. Fonseca is seeking to marginalize Mr. Medrano's role, and we demonstrate reasonableness and respect for the joint legal custody framework. Fourth, the practical cost of this concession is minimal — healthcare decisions, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities can be addressed through the mutual-agreement-with-mediation framework the evaluator recommends, and in practice, Ms. Fonseca's influence on these decisions will flow naturally from her role as the primary custodial parent.

B. Proactively Address Gatekeeping Concern

The evaluator's gatekeeping finding is the most significant vulnerability in our position. I recommend that we address it proactively in mediation rather than waiting for KD&S to raise it. Specifically:

• In the mediation brief submitted to Hon. Yee, we should affirmatively acknowledge Ms. Fonseca's commitment to facilitating the father-child relationship and highlight the evaluator's overall positive assessment of Ms. Fonseca's co-parenting disposition (discussed in Section IV.C above).

• We should propose concrete structural provisions that demonstrate good faith and a commitment to genuine co-parenting: the right-of-first-refusal provision, the parenting coordinator, and the co-parenting counseling. Each of these provisions, recommended by the evaluator, provides a mechanism for ensuring that Mr. Medrano's parenting role is respected and that communication between the parties is facilitated.

• We should prepare Ms. Fonseca to frame the Vancouver incident — which is the factual centerpiece of this dispute — as a logistical breakdown that arose from the absence of a formal parenting plan, rather than as a referendum on Mr. Medrano's fitness as a parent. The message should be: "We want a structured agreement precisely so that both parents can be fully involved."

C. Propose Parenting Coordinator

I recommend that we affirmatively adopt the evaluator's recommendation to appoint a parenting plan coordinator for the first 12–18 months following entry of the custody order. This serves our client's interests because it provides a neutral professional to manage day-to-day scheduling disputes and implementation issues, reducing the potential for conflict and preventing minor disagreements from escalating.

We have preliminarily identified Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, as a suitable candidate for this role. Dr. Ingalls has extensive experience in parenting coordination and is well-regarded in the Los Angeles family law community. I recommend that we confirm this selection with Ms. Fonseca and then propose Dr. Ingalls to KD&S as a joint nomination. If KD&S objects, we should be prepared with two or three alternative candidates for consideration.

D. Incorporate On-Location Work Provisions

The evaluator's support for a 14-consecutive-day threshold for work-travel custodial transfers is a critical point in our favor, and we should ensure it is prominently reflected in our parenting plan proposal. I recommend that we draft a detailed on-location work protocol to be incorporated as an exhibit to the parenting plan (to be designated Exhibit B). The protocol should include the following elements:

• A requirement that either parent provide at least 14 days' advance written notice of any anticipated work-related absence exceeding 14 consecutive days;

• An automatic temporary custodial transfer to the non-traveling parent for the duration of any absence exceeding the 14-day threshold;

• Structured make-up time for the traveling parent, to be exercised within 60 days of the parent's return, with the parenting coordinator authorized to manage scheduling of make-up time;

• A provision applying reciprocally to both parents, so that the protocol does not appear targeted at Mr. Medrano alone (even though, as a practical matter, it will be most frequently triggered by his work pattern).

E. Right of First Refusal

I recommend that we propose a right-of-first-refusal provision requiring each parent to offer the other parent the opportunity to provide childcare before engaging a third-party caregiver when the custodial parent will be unavailable for more than 8 consecutive hours. This threshold is consistent with the evaluator's recommendation and strikes an appropriate balance: it is short enough to address the evaluator's concern about Ms. Fonseca's periodic extended work hours, while long enough to avoid triggering the provision for routine, short-duration absences. The right-of-first-refusal provision serves dual purposes — it addresses the evaluator's concern about Ms. Fonseca's work schedule, and it constrains Mr. Medrano's use of third-party childcare during his custodial time, ensuring that the children are with a parent whenever one is available.

F. Timeshare Target

I recommend that we pursue a target of 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano during the school year, plus a 50/50 summer split of approximately 35 overnights to each parent, for an effective annual timeshare of approximately 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano. This allocation falls squarely within the evaluator's recommended range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and should be defensible in mediation and at hearing. It also aligns with the temporary custody order that has been in effect since May 30, 2023, providing continuity and minimizing disruption to the children.

In practical terms, this timeshare can be achieved with a schedule that provides Mr. Medrano with alternating weekends (Friday evening to Sunday evening), one midweek overnight per week (e.g., Wednesday), and additional time during school breaks and holidays allocated pursuant to a detailed holiday schedule. The summer 50/50 split can be structured as alternating two-week blocks. The specific schedule should be drafted with input from Ms. Fonseca and, if possible, coordinated with Minor's Counsel.

G. Leverage Report in Mediation Briefs

The mediation brief for Session 1, to be submitted to Hon. Yee by approximately November 10, 2023, should prominently feature the evaluator's recommendations as the proposed framework for settlement discussions. The report's substantial alignment with our client's core positions is a significant strategic advantage, and we should lean into it. The brief should walk the mediator through the evaluator's findings in a structured way, emphasizing the following key points:

• Ms. Fonseca is the established primary caretaker with a stable home and predictable schedule;

• The evaluator recommends primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca with a timeshare in the range we have proposed;

• The evaluator supports educational tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca;

• The evaluator has identified Mr. Medrano's work-travel pattern as the principal barrier to custodial consistency;

• Ms. Fonseca is willing to adopt the evaluator's recommendations in full, including the co-parenting counseling and parenting coordinator provisions, demonstrating her good faith and commitment to the co-parenting relationship.

By framing our position as one that fully embraces the evaluator's professional judgment, we place the burden on KD&S to explain why the evaluator's recommendations should be departed from — a difficult position in mediation before an experienced retired judicial officer.

H. Co-Parenting Counseling

I recommend that we accept the evaluator's recommendation for both parents to participate in co-parenting counseling for a minimum of six months. While Ms. Fonseca may initially view this recommendation as unnecessary or as implying a deficiency in her co-parenting approach, I believe acceptance is the correct strategic choice. It demonstrates reasonableness, aligns our position with the evaluator's recommendations, and will be viewed favorably by the mediator and by Minor's Counsel. Moreover, the co-parenting counseling may provide genuine benefit in facilitating communication between the parties during the transition to a formal custodial arrangement. I recommend discussing this point with Ms. Fonseca during the upcoming conference, emphasizing that acceptance of this recommendation reflects strength, not weakness, and that it deprives KD&S of the argument that Ms. Fonseca is resistant to working collaboratively with Mr. Medrano.

XIII. Communication with Minor's Counsel

Ms. Brannigan's position on the custody and visitation issues will carry significant weight in mediation and, if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing, with the court. To date, Ms. Brannigan has not taken a formal position, and we understand she has been awaiting the completion of the custody evaluation before doing so. The delivery of Dr. Sorensen's report presents an opportunity to engage with Ms. Brannigan and to seek her support — or, at minimum, her non-opposition — for our proposed parenting plan framework.

I recommend that we prepare and send a letter to Ms. Brannigan, Esq. (Minor's Counsel), setting forth our proposed parenting plan framework and incorporating the evaluator's recommendations as described above. The letter should:

• Summarize our client's proposed custodial arrangeme

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
TO: Priya Anand, Partner
FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate
DATE: October 13, 2023
RE: Analysis of Custody Evaluation Report — Fonseca v. Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
MATTER NO.: 1035-00002
CLIENT: Marguerite D. Fonseca
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the custody evaluation report prepared by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. The report was delivered to counsel for both parties and to Minor's Counsel on October 6, 2023, pursuant to the stipulation and order entered by the court on July 14, 2023. This memo identifies the report's key findings, assesses their impact on our client's litigation and settlement posture, and offers strategy recommendations ahead of the anticipated mediation before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.
Overall Assessment. The evaluation report is generally favorable to Ms. Fonseca's position on the central issues in dispute — namely, primary physical custody and the structure of joint legal custody. Dr. Sorensen's findings confirm Ms. Fonseca's status as the children's primary caretaker, acknowledge the stability and suitability of her home environment, and credit her willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. The psychological testing of Ms. Fonseca produced no clinical concerns of any kind. At the same time, the report contains certain findings — principally regarding a perceived risk of gatekeeping behavior and the demands of Ms. Fonseca's work schedule — that will require careful navigation in mediation and, if necessary, in any contested hearing.
Recommendations. Dr. Sorensen recommends joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca, a school-year timeshare arrangement in the range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and 35–40% to Mr. Medrano, and a more equal summer split of approximately 50/50. This recommendation is largely consistent with the custodial arrangement our client has sought from the outset of this matter. The evaluator further recommends tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca limited to educational decisions, the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator, co-parenting counseling for both parties, and a structured protocol for extended work-related absences by either parent.
Based on this analysis, I recommend that we proceed to mediation before Hon. Yee with confidence. However, we should adjust certain elements of our strategy — most notably, narrowing the scope of the requested tie-breaking authority and proactively addressing the evaluator's gatekeeping concern — to maximize the likelihood of a favorable stipulated agreement. The detailed strategy recommendations are set forth in Section XII below.
II. Background and Procedural History
This section provides relevant background and a summary of the procedural history necessary to contextualize the custody evaluation and this analysis.
Domestic Partnership and Children. Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Rafael J. Medrano registered a domestic partnership in the State of California on September 12, 2015 (California Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741). During the partnership, the parties had two children:
• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently age 6; and
• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, currently age 4.
Both children are enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a private K–8 school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Isabela is in the first grade and Mateo is enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program.
Dissolution. The domestic partnership was dissolved by judgment entered on November 3, 2022, in Case No. 22STFL09847, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Department 12. The dissolution judgment resolved property division issues but reserved all matters relating to child custody, visitation, and child support for future determination. Following the dissolution, the parties operated under an informal custody arrangement that was not reduced to a court order.
Breakdown of Informal Arrangement. The informal custody arrangement broke down in early 2023 when Mr. Medrano accepted a seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, through his production entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC. Mr. Medrano departed for Vancouver in approximately mid-January 2023 and did not return to the Los Angeles area until early March 2023. During this period, Ms. Fonseca assumed essentially all parenting responsibilities for both children, with only limited and sporadic involvement from Mr. Medrano via video calls. This event was the proximate catalyst for the formal custody proceedings that followed.
Retention of Counsel and RFO. Ms. Fonseca retained Calderwood & Harkness LLP on April 18, 2023. On May 2, 2023, this firm filed a Request for Order on behalf of Ms. Fonseca, seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca on all major decisions, and guideline child support.
Temporary Custody Order. Following a hearing on May 30, 2023, the court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceedings. The temporary order provided for alternating weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. to Mr. Medrano, one midweek overnight on Wednesdays to Mr. Medrano, and all remaining time to Ms. Fonseca. The temporary order has been in effect since that date and has been generally adhered to by both parties, with minor scheduling adjustments.
Minor's Counsel. On June 22, 2023, the court appointed Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894) as counsel for the minor children pursuant to Family Code § 3150. Ms. Brannigan's appointment was made on the court's own motion, based on the court's determination that the interests of the children warranted independent representation given the nature of the dispute and the children's ages. Ms. Brannigan has conducted her own investigation, including meetings with both parents and visits with the children, but has not yet taken a formal position on the custody and visitation issues. We anticipate she will do so following her review of the evaluation report.
Custody Evaluation. On July 14, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation, which was adopted as an order of the court, providing for the appointment of a private custody evaluator pursuant to Evidence Code § 730. Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., was selected by agreement of the parties and counsel. The stipulation provided that the evaluation fee of $18,500 would be split equally between the parties, with each party responsible for $9,250. Both parties have paid their respective shares. Dr. Sorensen commenced her evaluation in late July 2023 and delivered her written report to all counsel and to Minor's Counsel on October 6, 2023.
III. Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation
Dr. Sorensen's report describes her methodology in detail in Section II of the evaluation (pp. 3–7). The following summarizes the key components of her evaluation process as reported:
Individual Clinical Interviews with the Parents. Dr. Sorensen conducted two individual clinical interview sessions with each parent. The sessions with Ms. Fonseca took place on August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023, and lasted approximately 2.5 hours each. The sessions with Mr. Medrano took place on August 7, 2023, and August 21, 2023, and also lasted approximately 2.5 hours each. During these interviews, Dr. Sorensen explored each parent's personal and family history, the history of the domestic partnership and its dissolution, each parent's perception of the co-parenting relationship, each parent's parenting practices and philosophy, and each parent's proposals for the custodial arrangement.
Parent-Child Observations. Dr. Sorensen conducted observed interactions between each parent and both children in the respective parent's home. The observation of Ms. Fonseca with the children took place on September 2, 2023, and lasted approximately three hours. The observation of Mr. Medrano with the children took place on September 9, 2023, and lasted approximately three hours. During these sessions, Dr. Sorensen observed the parent and children engaging in routine activities including meals, playtime, and homework (for Isabela).
Home Visits. As part of the parent-child observations, Dr. Sorensen conducted environmental assessments of both residences:
• Ms. Fonseca's residence: 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. This is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom condominium unit of approximately 1,850 square feet. Each child has a dedicated bedroom, and there is a separate play/study area.
• Mr. Medrano's residence: 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602. This is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment of approximately 1,050 square feet. The children share a bedroom. The apartment is clean and in adequate condition but is significantly smaller than Ms. Fonseca's residence.
Interviews with the Children. Dr. Sorensen conducted an individual interview with Isabela (age 6) using an age-appropriate, play-based assessment methodology. This interview took place on September 16, 2023, at Dr. Sorensen's office and lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mateo (age 4) was observed during the parent-child interaction sessions but was not individually interviewed; Dr. Sorensen noted in the report that Mateo's age rendered him too young for a substantive individual interview and that meaningful preference data could not be elicited from a child of his developmental stage.
Collateral Contacts. Dr. Sorensen contacted the following collateral sources:
• Ridgeview Academy: Dr. Sorensen spoke with Ms. Carolyn Hightower, Director of Lower School; Ms. Janet Rios, Isabela's first-grade teacher; and Ms. Andrea Foy, Pre-K teacher for Mateo. School personnel were asked about each parent's involvement in the children's education, the children's academic performance and social adjustment, and any concerns regarding the children's well-being.
• Dr. David Reiss, M.D., the children's pediatrician, was contacted regarding the children's health, developmental status, and each parent's involvement in medical care.
• Each parent provided three personal references, all of whom were contacted by Dr. Sorensen.
Document Review. Dr. Sorensen reviewed the following documents as part of her evaluation: the dissolution judgment entered November 3, 2022; the Request for Order filed May 2, 2023, and the responsive declaration; the temporary custody order entered May 30, 2023; selected court filings and declarations from the file; and correspondence provided by each party.
Psychological Testing. Both parents completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Testing was administered at Dr. Sorensen's office on separate dates. The results for each parent are discussed in the respective sections below.
Note on Report Length and Scope of This Memo. The evaluation report is approximately 47 pages of narrative text plus appendices containing the psychological testing results, collateral contact summaries, and supporting documentation. This memorandum does not attempt to summarize every finding in the report. Rather, it focuses on the substantive findings and recommendations that bear most directly on the legal and strategic issues in this matter.
IV. Favorable Findings for Ms. Fonseca
The evaluation report contains numerous findings that support Ms. Fonseca's position on the primary issues in dispute. The most significant of these are discussed below.
A. Primary Caretaker Status
Dr. Sorensen's report identifies Ms. Fonseca as the primary caretaker throughout the children's lives. The evaluator found, based on interviews with both parents, the collateral contacts, and the documentary record, that Ms. Fonseca has been responsible for the substantial majority of day-to-day parenting tasks and decisions since the children's births. Specifically, the evaluator found that Ms. Fonseca has been the parent primarily responsible for:
• Enrolling both children at Ridgeview Academy and managing all aspects of their school participation, including parent-teacher conferences, school events, and communication with teachers and administrators;
• Scheduling and attending the children's medical and dental appointments, maintaining vaccination and health records, and managing any illness or health-related issues;
• Coordinating the children's extracurricular activities, including Isabela's participation in a weekly art class and a Saturday morning soccer program;
• Supervising Isabela's homework and reading assignments;
• Managing the children's daily routines, including morning preparation for school, meals, bedtime routines, and weekend activities; and
• Arranging childcare coverage when neither parent was available, including vetting and retaining a regular nanny (Ms. Gloria Sandoval) who assists during peak work periods.
This finding was corroborated by the Ridgeview Academy collateral contacts. Ms. Hightower, the Director of Lower School, confirmed to Dr. Sorensen that Ms. Fonseca is the parent who is "consistently in communication with the school" and who attends virtually all school events and conferences. Ms. Rios, Isabela's teacher, described Ms. Fonseca as "extremely involved" in Isabela's education. Dr. Reiss, the children's pediatrician, similarly confirmed that Ms. Fonseca is the parent who typically schedules appointments and accompanies the children to medical visits.
The evaluator further noted the significance of Ms. Fonseca's employment stability in this context. Ms. Fonseca holds the position of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development, at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a major entertainment company headquartered in Burbank, California. While her position is demanding and carries significant responsibility — she oversees approximately 18 original series in various stages of development and production — it is an office-based role with a generally predictable weekday schedule. This stands in contrast to Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career, which requires frequent and sometimes extended travel to shooting locations. The evaluator concluded that Ms. Fonseca's more predictable schedule, combined with her demonstrated track record as the primary day-to-day parent, supports a custodial arrangement in which the children's primary residence is with Ms. Fonseca.
This finding is of considerable importance to our case. Under California law, the court is required to consider the best interests of the children in making custody determinations (Family Code § 3011), and the identity and involvement of the primary caretaker is a well-established factor in that analysis. The evaluator's unequivocal finding on this point provides a strong evidentiary foundation for Ms. Fonseca's request for primary physical custody.
B. Home Environment and Stability
Dr. Sorensen's assessment of Ms. Fonseca's Studio City residence was uniformly positive. The report describes the home as "well-organized, clean, and thoughtfully arranged with the children's needs in mind." The evaluator noted that each child has a dedicated bedroom that is age-appropriately furnished and decorated, and that there is a separate play and study area in the home. The evaluator observed that the children's artwork, school projects, and photographs were prominently displayed throughout the home, reflecting an environment that centers the children's presence and activities.
Critically, the evaluator emphasized the continuity and stability associated with Ms. Fonseca's residence. The children have lived primarily at this address throughout the post-separation period, and the home is in close proximity to Ridgeview Academy, the children's pediatrician, and their extracurricular activity locations. The evaluator observed that the children appear well-settled in this environment and that their social connections — friendships with neighborhood children, familiarity with the local community — are centered around Ms. Fonseca's home. This finding aligns with the well-established principle that continuity and stability are paramount considerations in custody determinations, particularly for children of Isabela's and Mateo's ages.
C. Co-Parenting Disposition
Dr. Sorensen described Ms. Fonseca as demonstrating a genuine willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano. The evaluator noted that during interviews, Ms. Fonseca repeatedly expressed her belief that both children benefit from a meaningful relationship with their father and that she wants the children to have consistent, quality time with Mr. Medrano. Ms. Fonseca articulated a preference for a structured, court-ordered parenting plan — rather than a continuation of the informal arrangement — precisely because she believes a clear framework will reduce conflict and provide the predictability that serves the children's interests.
The evaluator further noted that Ms. Fonseca's behavior during the observed parent-child interaction was consistent with this expressed willingness. During the observation session at Ms. Fonseca's home, the children made reference to activities with their father, and Ms. Fonseca responded positively and encouragingly. The evaluator observed no evidence of Ms. Fonseca discouraging or undermining the children's relationship with Mr. Medrano during the observed interaction.
This finding is important because it directly addresses one of the statutory factors under Family Code § 3040(a)(1), which provides that the court shall consider which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent. While the evaluator did flag certain concerns in this area (discussed in Section V.A below), the overall finding is that Ms. Fonseca is disposed to facilitating co-parenting, which supports her position as the primary custodial parent.
D. Children's Attachment and Adjustment
The evaluator's observations of both children were generally positive across both households. However, the report contains several findings specific to Ms. Fonseca's home that are particularly favorable.
With respect to Isabela (age 6), Dr. Sorensen described her as a "bright, articulate, and socially adept child" who is performing at or above grade level at Ridgeview Academy. During the observed interaction at Ms. Fonseca's home, Isabela demonstrated a secure attachment to her mother, engaging in relaxed and affectionate exchanges, seeking and accepting physical comfort, and displaying confidence in exploring activities independently while remaining connected to Ms. Fonseca. The evaluator noted that Isabela appeared comfortable managing her homework routine with Ms. Fonseca's supervision and guidance, suggesting a well-established educational partnership between mother and daughter.
With respect to Mateo (age 4), the evaluator observed that he appeared comfortable, settled, and at ease in Ms. Fonseca's home. Mateo demonstrated age-appropriate developmental milestones, including language development, fine and gross motor skills, and social engagement. The evaluator noted that Mateo displayed secure attachment behaviors toward Ms. Fonseca, including seeking proximity during moments of uncertainty and using Ms. Fonseca as a "home base" during play.
These attachment findings are consistent with Ms. Fonseca's primary caretaker role and reinforce the appropriateness of designating her home as the children's primary residence.
E. Psychological Testing
Ms. Fonseca completed the MMPI-2 and PAI on August 25, 2023, at Dr. Sorensen's office. The evaluator reported that Ms. Fonseca's profiles on both instruments were within normal limits, with no clinically elevated scales suggesting personality pathology, psychopathology, substance abuse or dependence, or deception. The evaluator described Ms. Fonseca's test-taking approach as "forthcoming and cooperative," with validity scales indicating a "candid and non-defensive response style." The absence of any clinical concerns on the psychological testing eliminates what could otherwise be a significant vulnerability for our client, and it allows us to present Ms. Fonseca's psychological fitness as an affirmative point in mediation or at hearing.
V. Unfavorable or Cautionary Findings for Ms. Fonseca
While the evaluation report is, on balance, favorable to our client, it contains several findings that present risks and that opposing counsel will undoubtedly seek to exploit. We must address each of these findings proactively.
A. Risk of Marginalization of Father's Role
This is the most significant area of concern in the evaluation from our client's perspective. Dr. Sorensen noted that Ms. Fonseca, at times during the individual clinical interviews, minimized Mr. Medrano's parenting contributions and expressed frustration about his career choices in a manner that the evaluator characterized as having the potential, "if unchecked," to "evolve into gatekeeping behavior that could undermine the children's relationship with their father." The evaluator cited specific instances:
• During the August 4, 2023 interview, Ms. Fonseca reportedly stated that Mr. Medrano "doesn't really understand what it takes to keep things running for the kids" and characterized his parenting as "fun but not substantive." While the evaluator acknowledged that some frustration is understandable given the circumstances, she noted that these characterizations did not fully credit Mr. Medrano's genuine engagement with the children, as observed by the evaluator and reported by collateral contacts.
• During the August 18, 2023 interview, Ms. Fonseca reiterated her request for tie-breaking authority on "all major decisions" — including healthcare, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities, in addition to educational decisions. The evaluator found that this request, if granted in its full scope, could effectively reduce Mr. Medrano to a secondary or consultative role in the children's lives, which the evaluator cautioned would not serve the children's best interests. The evaluator specifically stated that "while Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated competence in managing the children's lives is commendable, the breadth of tie-breaking authority she seeks is inconsistent with a genuine joint legal custody arrangement."
Strategy Note. This finding will almost certainly be highlighted by opposing counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, in any mediation brief or court filing. Ms. Kwan will use this language to paint Ms. Fonseca as seeking to marginalize Mr. Medrano's role in the children's lives. To mitigate this risk, I recommend that we narrow the tie-breaking authority request to educational decisions only, which is the one area where the evaluator appeared willing to support such authority given Ms. Fonseca's demonstrated primary role in managing the children's education. This concession costs little in practical terms — Ms. Fonseca's principal concern is maintaining educational continuity at Ridgeview Academy and control over decisions such as tutoring and potential special education services — and it aligns our position with the evaluator's recommendation, which will carry significant weight with the mediator and, if necessary, with the court. The detailed strategy recommendation on this point is set forth in Section XII.A below.
B. Income Disparity and Children's Standard of Living
The evaluator observed that there is a significant income disparity between the parties. Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. is approximately $870,000, inclusive of base salary, annual bonus, and equity compensation. Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC have averaged approximately $340,000 over the preceding three years, though with substantial year-to-year variability. This disparity is reflected in the children's living environments: Ms. Fonseca's three-bedroom Studio City condominium is larger, more comfortable, and better-appointed than Mr. Medrano's two-bedroom North Hollywood apartment.
While the evaluator did not treat this disparity as directly unfavorable to Ms. Fonseca — indeed, the larger and more stable home is an advantage in the physical custody analysis — she did note that the disparity could become a factor in two respects. First, Mr. Medrano may argue that a more equal timeshare, combined with adequate child support, would allow him to provide a more comparable living environment, thereby promoting the children's comfort and consistency across both households. Second, the evaluator observed that the children are "accustomed to a standard of living that reflects Ms. Fonseca's higher income" and that any custody arrangement should account for the importance of maintaining a reasonably consistent experience for the children in both homes.
This finding is not directly adverse to Ms. Fonseca's custody position, but it has implications for the child support analysis and may be leveraged by Mr. Medrano and KD&S to argue for higher child support or for contribution orders (e.g., requiring Ms. Fonseca to contribute to upgrading Mr. Medrano's housing). The interplay between this finding and the child support posture is discussed further in Section XI below.
C. Work Schedule Concerns
The evaluator noted that Ms. Fonseca's role at Luminos Entertainment Group, overseeing approximately 18 original series, can entail extended evening and weekend work commitments during production cycles, including upfront season launches, pilot reviews, and network scheduling periods. Ms. Fonseca acknowledged during her interviews that she relies on childcare assistance from Ms. Gloria Sandoval during these peak periods. The evaluator credited Ms. Fonseca with having established reliable childcare arrangements but noted that "any custody arrangement should account for the reality that Ms. Fonseca's work demands may periodically require her to delegate daily caregiving tasks, and a right-of-first-refusal provision would ensure that the children's father is given the opportunity to provide care during these times before a third-party caregiver is utilized."
This finding presents a tactical risk. Mr. Medrano and KD&S can be expected to argue that if Ms. Fonseca is unavailable during substantial portions of her custodial time, a closer-to-equal timeshare is warranted, or, at minimum, that Mr. Medrano should receive additional custodial time during Ms. Fonseca's peak production periods. We should preemptively address this concern by incorporating a right-of-first-refusal provision into our parenting plan proposal, as the evaluator recommends, and by framing Ms. Fonseca's work arrangements as demonstrating responsible planning — not as evidence of unavailability. The strategy recommendation on this point is set forth in Sections XII.D and XII.E below.
VI. Findings Regarding Mr. Medrano
A balanced assessment of the evaluation requires an understanding of the evaluator's findings regarding Mr. Medrano, as both his strengths and weaknesses inform our strategy.
A. Positive Findings
The evaluator's assessment of Mr. Medrano as a parent is generally positive, and we should not underestimate the weight that his strengths may carry in mediation or at hearing. Specifically:
Dr. Sorensen described Mr. Medrano as "a loving, engaged father with a warm, playful, and physically active parenting style." During the observed parent-child interaction at Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood apartment on September 9, 2023, the evaluator observed Mr. Medrano engaging both children in creative play, including a collaborative art project and an outdoor excursion to a nearby park. Isabela, in particular, was observed to be animated and enthusiastic during time with her father, and she expressed enjoyment of their shared activities during her individual interview with the evaluator.
Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood apartment, while smaller and less well-appointed than Ms. Fonseca's residence, was assessed as adequate and child-appropriate. The evaluator noted that the children's shared bedroom was organized with each child's belongings, and that Mr. Medrano had made reasonable efforts to create a welcoming environment for the children within the constraints of his living space. The evaluator did not find the home environment to be deficient or unsuitable for custodial purposes.
Mr. Medrano's psychological testing (MMPI-2 and PAI) produced no clinical concerns. His profiles were within normal limits, with no elevated scales suggesting personality pathology, substance issues, or deception. The validity scales indicated a candid response style. This result eliminates the possibility of leveraging psychological fitness as a differentiating factor between the parties.
Mr. Medrano expressed to the evaluator a strong desire for increased custodial time with the children and articulated concrete plans for managing his freelance cinematography schedule around the children's needs. He stated that he has begun to limit his acceptance of out-of-town assignments and that he intends to prioritize projects in the greater Los Angeles area. The evaluator acknowledged these stated intentions but, as discussed below, expressed reservations about their reliability given Mr. Medrano's track record.
B. Negative or Concerning Findings
Despite the positive assessment of Mr. Medrano's parenting qualities, the evaluation report identifies several significant concerns that substantially weaken his position on the custodial issues.
Work Travel and Custodial Consistency. The evaluator identified Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career as "the most significant concern regarding his ability to maintain a consistent and reliable custodial schedule." Mr. Medrano operates through Medrano Visuals, LLC, and his work frequently requires on-location shoots of varying duration and in varying locations, both domestically and internationally. The seven-week Vancouver shoot in early 2023 was cited by the evaluator as "emblematic of the challenge" — a lengthy absence during which Mr. Medrano was effectively unavailable for in-person parenting.
The evaluator found that during the Vancouver absence, Mr. Medrano made "limited and inadequate arrangements for substitute care." He did not arrange for a family member or trusted caregiver to exercise custodial time on his behalf, nor did he make formal arrangements with Ms. Fonseca to temporarily adjust the custodial schedule. Instead, the informal arrangement simply collapsed, with Ms. Fonseca absorbing essentially 100% of the parenting burden for the seven-week duration. The evaluator noted that this pattern — of accepting work assignments without adequately planning for the children's care — raises legitimate concerns about the reliability of Mr. Medrano's custodial time, regardless of his stated intentions to change his behavior.
Income Variability. The evaluator observed that Mr. Medrano's freelance income is inherently variable and project-dependent. While his three-year average earnings of approximately $340,000 per year are substantial, the evaluator noted fluctuations from year to year and expressed concern that financial pressures could incentivize Mr. Medrano to accept extended on-location assignments, thereby perpetuating the inconsistency that has been problematic. This finding supports the argument that Mr. Medrano's financial circumstances are less stable than Ms. Fonseca's and that a custody arrangement should include structural safeguards to protect the children's routine when Mr. Medrano accepts out-of-town work.
Acknowledgment of Impact. Perhaps most significantly from a litigation perspective, Dr. Sorensen observed that Mr. Medrano, during his clinical interviews, "displayed some difficulty acknowledging the practical impact his travel schedule has on the children's routine." The evaluator reported that when confronted with the logistics of his work schedule, Mr. Medrano tended to "frame Ms. Fonseca's concerns as controlling or adversarial rather than engaging with the substance of those concerns." The evaluator characterized this as a "lack of insight" that, "if it persists, could impede effective co-parenting and suggest that Mr. Medrano may not fully appreciate the need for predictability and consistency in the children's lives."
This finding is significant because it undermines Mr. Medrano's credibility on the key factual question in this case: whether he can reliably maintain a custodial schedule. It also serves as an effective counterpoint to the gatekeeping concern raised about Ms. Fonseca — to the extent Ms. Fonseca has expressed frustration about Mr. Medrano's career choices, the evaluator appears to acknowledge that those concerns have a legitimate basis. We should leverage this finding in our mediation brief and presentations.
VII. Children's Expressed Preferences
Dr. Sorensen's report addresses the children's expressed preferences, to the extent they could be assessed given the children's ages.
Isabela (age 6). Isabela was interviewed individually by Dr. Sorensen on September 16, 2023, using age-appropriate, play-based assessment techniques. The evaluator reported that Isabela expressed love for both parents and did not state a preference for living with one parent over the other. However, several themes emerged from the interview that are relevant to our analysis:
• Isabela stated that she likes her school (Ridgeview Academy), her teachers, and her friends in the neighborhood near Ms. Fonseca's home. She described her daily routine in a way that reflects familiarity and comfort with the structure Ms. Fonseca has established.
• Isabela said she misses her father when he is away for work and expressed the wish that he "didn't have to go so far." The evaluator interpreted this as reflecting Isabela's awareness of and sensitivity to her father's absences, and noted that it underscores the importance of a custodial arrangement that provides predictable and reliable time with Mr. Medrano.
• Isabela expressed a general desire for "things to stay the same" and for there to be a predictable schedule. The evaluator interpreted this as a preference for routine and stability, which is developmentally appropriate for a child of her age.
Mateo (age 4). The evaluator did not conduct a formal interview with Mateo due to his age. Mateo was observed during the parent-child observation sessions at both homes. The evaluator reported that Mateo appeared comfortable and at ease with both parents and displayed no signs of distress, anxiety, or discomfort with either parent. No meaningful preference could be elicited from a child of Mateo's developmental stage.
Legal Significance. The evaluator noted that under California Family Code § 3042, the court may consider the wishes of a child and give them appropriate weight in light of the child's age and capacity. Given Isabela's age of six, her expressed preferences may be considered by the court but are not determinative. Mateo's age precludes any weight being given to an expressed preference. The evaluator's characterization of Isabela's statements as reflecting a desire for stability and predictability — rather than a preference for one parent — supports our framing of the case as one in which the children's need for consistency favors the custodial arrangement Ms. Fonseca has proposed.
VIII. Dr. Sorensen's Recommendations
Dr. Sorensen's recommendations are set forth in Section VIII of the evaluation report (pp. 38–44). The key recommendations are summarized and analyzed below.
A. Legal Custody
Dr. Sorensen recommends joint legal custody. She does not recommend sole legal custody to either parent, finding that both parents are capable of participating in major decisions regarding the children's welfare and that the children's interests are best served by a joint legal custody arrangement.
However, the evaluator does recommend that Ms. Fonseca be granted tie-breaking authority — limited to educational decisions — in the event the parties are unable to reach agreement on a specific educational issue. The evaluator defined "educational decisions" as including school enrollment and changes in school placement, tutoring and supplemental educational services, special education assessments and services, and educational accommodations. The evaluator grounded this recommendation in Ms. Fonseca's "demonstrated primary role in managing the children's education, her established relationship with the children's school, and the particular importance of educational continuity for both children at this stage of their development."
For all other major decisions — including healthcare decisions, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities exceeding a reasonable cost threshold (which the evaluator suggested be defined in the parenting plan) — the evaluator recommends that the parties be required to reach mutual agreement, with mediation serving as the dispute resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse. The evaluator specifically declined to recommend tie-breaking authority on these issues, stating that "granting one parent unilateral decision-making authority on the full spectrum of major decisions would be inconsistent with a genuine joint legal custody arrangement and could engender resentment and disengagement by the other parent."
Analysis. This recommendation is partially favorable to our client. The evaluator supports the educational tie-breaking authority Ms. Fonseca has sought, which is the most practically significant component of the request. The evaluator's refusal to extend tie-breaking authority to all major decisions is a setback, but as discussed in Section XII.A below, I recommend that we accept this narrower formulation — it is defensible and aligns our position with the evaluator's findings.
B. Physical Custody and Timeshare
Dr. Sorensen recommends joint physical custody with the primary residence designated as Ms. Fonseca's Studio City home. This recommendation is based on Ms. Fonseca's primary caretaker status, the stability and continuity of the children's current living arrangement, the children's established community and school connections, and the comparative predictability of Ms. Fonseca's work schedule.
The evaluator recommends a school-year timeshare in the range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and 35–40% to Mr. Medrano. The evaluator stated that the precise allocation within this range should be "contingent on Mr. Medrano's demonstrated ability to maintain a consistent and reliable schedule" and suggested that the parenting plan include provisions for adjusting the timeshare if Mr. Medrano's work-travel patterns render him unavailable during his scheduled custodial time.
For the summer break period, which the evaluator estimated at approximately 10 weeks (70 days), the evaluator recommends a 50/50 split, providing approximately 35 overnights to each parent. The evaluator reasoned that the summer period — when school is not in session and the children's need for routine is somewhat reduced — affords an opportunity for both children to spend extended, uninterrupted time with Mr. Medrano.
The evaluator further recommends that any extended travel for work purposes by either parent that exceeds 14 consecutive days should trigger a temporary custodial transfer to the other parent, with structured make-up time to be exercised within a reasonable period (the evaluator suggested 60 days). This recommendation applies reciprocally to both parents, though the evaluator noted that it is most practically relevant to Mr. Medrano's work pattern.
Analysis. This recommendation is highly favorable to our client and falls squarely within the timeshare range we have been targeting. The 60–65% school-year allocation to Ms. Fonseca, combined with the 50/50 summer split, produces an annual timeshare that is consistent with our target of approximately 63.6% Fonseca / 36.4% Medrano. The work-travel provision is particularly valuable, as it provides a structural mechanism for addressing the very issue that precipitated this dispute.
C. Transition and Parenting Coordination
The evaluator recommends the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist with transitions, scheduling disputes, and implementation issues during the first 12–18 months following entry of the custody order. The evaluator noted that the parties' communication has been strained and that a neutral professional can help facilitate the practical logistics of the parenting plan, particularly during the initial transition period. The evaluator did not recommend a specific coordinator but suggested that the parties select one by agreement or, if unable to agree, that the court appoint one.
The evaluator also recommends specific pick-up and drop-off protocols to minimize conflict during custodial transitions. The evaluator observed that transitions between homes can be a source of stress for children, particularly when parental conflict is present, and recommended that transitions occur at a neutral location (such as the children's school) whenever possible to reduce the potential for conflict.
D. Other Recommendations
The evaluator made several additional recommendations:
• Educational Continuity. The evaluator recommends that both children remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy to maintain educational continuity and stability. The evaluator noted that any change in school placement would be disruptive to both children and should be avoided absent a compelling reason.
• Co-Parenting Counseling. The evaluator recommends that both parents participate in co-parenting counseling with a licensed therapist for a minimum of six months. The evaluator noted that while the parties' co-parenting relationship is not characterized by extreme conflict, there are communication challenges and mutual frustrations that could benefit from professional guidance. The evaluator specifically recommended that counseling focus on communication strategies, role clarity, and developing shared parenting expectations.
• Right of First Refusal. The evaluator recommends that the parenting plan include a right-of-first-refusal provision requiring each parent to offer the other parent the opportunity to care for the children before engaging a third-party caregiver when the custodial parent will be unavailable for a specified number of consecutive hours. The evaluator did not specify the exact threshold but suggested it be "reasonable in light of both parents' work schedules."
IX. Comparison of Evaluation Recommendations to Client's Position
The following table compares the evaluator's recommendations to our client's pre-evaluation position on each major issue:
As the table illustrates, the evaluator's recommendations align with our client's position on the most significant issues — physical custody designation, timeshare range, summer schedule, and the on-location work provision. The only area of meaningful divergence is the scope of tie-breaking authority, where the evaluator recommends a narrower grant than our client initially sought. The additional recommendations (parenting coordinator, co-parenting counseling, right of first refusal) were not part of our initial proposal but are consistent with our client's interests and should be adopted, both because they serve the children's well-being and because embracing the evaluator's recommendations demonstrates reasonableness and good faith.
X. Assessment of Impact on Opposing Party's Position
We should anticipate the arguments that Mr. Medrano and his counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, will make in response to the evaluation report. Based on our analysis, KD&S is likely to emphasize the following points:
Positive Assessment of Mr. Medrano as a Parent. The evaluator's description of Mr. Medrano as a loving, engaged father with a warm parenting style provides KD&S with affirmative evidence to support a request for greater custodial time. The finding that Isabela expressed missing her father when he is away will likely be cited prominently to argue that the children's emotional needs require more time with Mr. Medrano than the evaluator has recommended, or at least the maximum end of the evaluator's recommended range (i.e., 40% rather than 35%).
Gatekeeping Concern. KD&S will undoubtedly seize upon the evaluator's finding regarding the potential for gatekeeping behavior by Ms. Fonseca. We should expect this language to appear in the opposing mediation brief and to be raised directly with Hon. Yee. KD&S will use this finding to argue for broader shared decision-making authority and to resist any form of tie-breaking authority, or alternatively, to seek reciprocal tie-breaking provisions.
Work-Schedule Concern. The evaluator's observation regarding Ms. Fonseca's periodic extended work hours will be leveraged by KD&S to argue either for a closer-to-equal timeshare or for a flexible provision that awards Mr. Medrano additional custodial time during Ms. Fonseca's peak production periods. KD&S may frame this as: if Ms. Fonseca is delegating childcare to a nanny during her custodial time, the children would be better served by being with their father.
Income Disparity. KD&S will likely use the evaluator's acknowledgment of the income disparity to support a request for higher child support and/or contribution orders that would allow Mr. Medrano to improve his living situation, thereby ostensibly equalizing the children's experience in both homes.
Our Counter-Position. Despite these arguments, Mr. Medrano's position is significantly weakened by the evaluator's findings regarding his work-travel patterns and the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement in early 2023. The evaluator's characterization of the Vancouver absence as "emblematic" of the problem, and her finding that Mr. Medrano displayed a "lack of insight" regarding the impact of his travel on the children's routine, directly undercuts his credibility on the central custodial question. Moreover, the evaluator's recommendation of primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca — the single most important finding in the report — effectively resolves the core dispute in our client's favor. Mr. Medrano's strongest argument is for the upper end of the evaluator's timeshare range, but even that outcome (60/40 rather than 65/35) would be acceptable to our client and within our target parameters.
XI. Impact on Child Support Posture
The evaluator's timeshare recommendation has direct implications for the child support calculation under California's guideline formula. The following analysis should be read in conjunction with the detailed guideline analysis memorandum prepared by Nadia Petrov, dated May 15, 2023.
Timeshare Input. The evaluator's recommended timeshare range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca during the school year, combined with a 50/50 summer split, is consistent with our target of approximately 63.6% annual timeshare to Ms. Fonseca, which translates to approximately 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano annually. This timeshare percentage is a key input to the DissoMaster guideline calculation.
Guideline Calculation. Per the Petrov guideline analysis memo, at a 63.6/36.4 timeshare split, with Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income of approximately $72,500 and Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income of approximately $28,333 (based on a three-year average and the forensic analysis performed by Harold K. Yamamoto of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP), the parties' combined gross monthly income is approximately $100,833. Under these inputs, the DissoMaster guideline child support amount is approximately $1,274 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This reflects the statutory formula's recognition of the income disparity between the parties and the timeshare allocation.
Potential Deviation. If we pursue a downward deviation from the guideline amount, the evaluator's recommendation that the parties share extracurricular costs and that each parent bear certain child-related expenses during their respective custodial time could provide a basis for arguing that a below-guideline amount is appropriate when considered in combination with add-on cost-sharing obligations. Specifically, if Mr. Medrano is receiving a substantial share of the children's extracurricular and activity costs directly (rather than as a component of support), a modest downward deviation from the guideline amount may be defensible.
Cross-References. The child support analysis should be coordinated with the income imputation memorandum prepared by Petrov (dated June 30, 2023), which addresses the characterization of Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC and the forensic analysis conducted by Yamamoto. The income imputation issue may become contentious, as KD&S may argue for a lower imputed income for Mr. Medrano (thereby increasing the guideline support obligation) or, conversely, for a higher income for Ms. Fonseca based on the inclusion of equity compensation and other benefits.
I will coordinate with Nadia Petrov to update the child support calculations to reflect the proposed 232/133 overnight timeshare and to prepare alternative scenarios at different timeshare allocations within the evaluator's recommended range.
XII. Strategy Recommendations Ahead of Mediation
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the following strategic adjustments and action items in preparation for the mediation before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.
A. Adjust Tie-Breaking Authority Request
I recommend that we narrow the tie-breaking authority request from all major decisions to educational decisions only, consistent with the evaluator's recommendation. This adjustment is strategically sound for several reasons. First, educational decisions are the area of greatest practical significance to Ms. Fonseca — her principal concern is maintaining Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy and retaining control over educational placement and services. Second, the evaluator explicitly supported tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, meaning our position will be backed by the evaluator's professional opinion. Third, by narrowing the request, we deprive KD&S of the argument that Ms. Fonseca is seeking to marginalize Mr. Medrano's role, and we demonstrate reasonableness and respect for the joint legal custody framework. Fourth, the practical cost of this concession is minimal — healthcare decisions, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities can be addressed through the mutual-agreement-with-mediation framework the evaluator recommends, and in practice, Ms. Fonseca's influence on these decisions will flow naturally from her role as the primary custodial parent.
B. Proactively Address Gatekeeping Concern
The evaluator's gatekeeping finding is the most significant vulnerability in our position. I recommend that we address it proactively in mediation rather than waiting for KD&S to raise it. Specifically:
• In the mediation brief submitted to Hon. Yee, we should affirmatively acknowledge Ms. Fonseca's commitment to facilitating the father-child relationship and highlight the evaluator's overall positive assessment of Ms. Fonseca's co-parenting disposition (discussed in Section IV.C above).
• We should propose concrete structural provisions that demonstrate good faith and a commitment to genuine co-parenting: the right-of-first-refusal provision, the parenting coordinator, and the co-parenting counseling. Each of these provisions, recommended by the evaluator, provides a mechanism for ensuring that Mr. Medrano's parenting role is respected and that communication between the parties is facilitated.
• We should prepare Ms. Fonseca to frame the Vancouver incident — which is the factual centerpiece of this dispute — as a logistical breakdown that arose from the absence of a formal parenting plan, rather than as a referendum on Mr. Medrano's fitness as a parent. The message should be: "We want a structured agreement precisely so that both parents can be fully involved."
C. Propose Parenting Coordinator
I recommend that we affirmatively adopt the evaluator's recommendation to appoint a parenting plan coordinator for the first 12–18 months following entry of the custody order. This serves our client's interests because it provides a neutral professional to manage day-to-day scheduling disputes and implementation issues, reducing the potential for conflict and preventing minor disagreements from escalating.
We have preliminarily identified Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, as a suitable candidate for this role. Dr. Ingalls has extensive experience in parenting coordination and is well-regarded in the Los Angeles family law community. I recommend that we confirm this selection with Ms. Fonseca and then propose Dr. Ingalls to KD&S as a joint nomination. If KD&S objects, we should be prepared with two or three alternative candidates for consideration.
D. Incorporate On-Location Work Provisions
The evaluator's support for a 14-consecutive-day threshold for work-travel custodial transfers is a critical point in our favor, and we should ensure it is prominently reflected in our parenting plan proposal. I recommend that we draft a detailed on-location work protocol to be incorporated as an exhibit to the parenting plan (to be designated Exhibit B). The protocol should include the following elements:
• A requirement that either parent provide at least 14 days' advance written notice of any anticipated work-related absence exceeding 14 consecutive days;
• An automatic temporary custodial transfer to the non-traveling parent for the duration of any absence exceeding the 14-day threshold;
• Structured make-up time for the traveling parent, to be exercised within 60 days of the parent's return, with the parenting coordinator authorized to manage scheduling of make-up time;
• A provision applying reciprocally to both parents, so that the protocol does not appear targeted at Mr. Medrano alone (even though, as a practical matter, it will be most frequently triggered by his work pattern).
E. Right of First Refusal
I recommend that we propose a right-of-first-refusal provision requiring each parent to offer the other parent the opportunity to provide childcare before engaging a third-party caregiver when the custodial parent will be unavailable for more than 8 consecutive hours. This threshold is consistent with the evaluator's recommendation and strikes an appropriate balance: it is short enough to address the evaluator's concern about Ms. Fonseca's periodic extended work hours, while long enough to avoid triggering the provision for routine, short-duration absences. The right-of-first-refusal provision serves dual purposes — it addresses the evaluator's concern about Ms. Fonseca's work schedule, and it constrains Mr. Medrano's use of third-party childcare during his custodial time, ensuring that the children are with a parent whenever one is available.
F. Timeshare Target
I recommend that we pursue a target of 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano during the school year, plus a 50/50 summer split of approximately 35 overnights to each parent, for an effective annual timeshare of approximately 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano. This allocation falls squarely within the evaluator's recommended range of 60–65% to Ms. Fonseca and should be defensible in mediation and at hearing. It also aligns with the temporary custody order that has been in effect since May 30, 2023, providing continuity and minimizing disruption to the children.
In practical terms, this timeshare can be achieved with a schedule that provides Mr. Medrano with alternating weekends (Friday evening to Sunday evening), one midweek overnight per week (e.g., Wednesday), and additional time during school breaks and holidays allocated pursuant to a detailed holiday schedule. The summer 50/50 split can be structured as alternating two-week blocks. The specific schedule should be drafted with input from Ms. Fonseca and, if possible, coordinated with Minor's Counsel.
G. Leverage Report in Mediation Briefs
The mediation brief for Session 1, to be submitted to Hon. Yee by approximately November 10, 2023, should prominently feature the evaluator's recommendations as the proposed framework for settlement discussions. The report's substantial alignment with our client's core positions is a significant strategic advantage, and we should lean into it. The brief should walk the mediator through the evaluator's findings in a structured way, emphasizing the following key points:
• Ms. Fonseca is the established primary caretaker with a stable home and predictable schedule;
• The evaluator recommends primary physical custody to Ms. Fonseca with a timeshare in the range we have proposed;
• The evaluator supports educational tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca;
• The evaluator has identified Mr. Medrano's work-travel pattern as the principal barrier to custodial consistency;
• Ms. Fonseca is willing to adopt the evaluator's recommendations in full, including the co-parenting counseling and parenting coordinator provisions, demonstrating her good faith and commitment to the co-parenting relationship.
By framing our position as one that fully embraces the evaluator's professional judgment, we place the burden on KD&S to explain why the evaluator's recommendations should be departed from — a difficult position in mediation before an experienced retired judicial officer.
H. Co-Parenting Counseling
I recommend that we accept the evaluator's recommendation for both parents to participate in co-parenting counseling for a minimum of six months. While Ms. Fonseca may initially view this recommendation as unnecessary or as implying a deficiency in her co-parenting approach, I believe acceptance is the correct strategic choice. It demonstrates reasonableness, aligns our position with the evaluator's recommendations, and will be viewed favorably by the mediator and by Minor's Counsel. Moreover, the co-parenting counseling may provide genuine benefit in facilitating communication between the parties during the transition to a formal custodial arrangement. I recommend discussing this point with Ms. Fonseca during the upcoming conference, emphasizing that acceptance of this recommendation reflects strength, not weakness, and that it deprives KD&S of the argument that Ms. Fonseca is resistant to working collaboratively with Mr. Medrano.
XIII. Communication with Minor's Counsel
Ms. Brannigan's position on the custody and visitation issues will carry significant weight in mediation and, if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing, with the court. To date, Ms. Brannigan has not taken a formal position, and we understand she has been awaiting the completion of the custody evaluation before doing so. The delivery of Dr. Sorensen's report presents an opportunity to engage with Ms. Brannigan and to seek her support — or, at minimum, her non-opposition — for our proposed parenting plan framework.
I recommend that we prepare and send a letter to Ms. Brannigan, Esq. (Minor's Counsel), setting forth our proposed parenting plan framework and incorporating the evaluator's recommendations as described above. The letter should:
• Summarize our client's proposed custodial arrangeme

MEMORANDUM

MATTER NO.: 1035-00002

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts