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

case-strategy-memo.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

15 / 36 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

To: Priya Anand, Partner

From: Devon Archer, Lead Associate

Date: April 25, 2023

Re: Case Strategy — Fonseca Custody & Parenting Plan (Matter No. 1035-00002)

Client: Marguerite D. Fonseca

Court/Case: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse; Case No. 22STFL09847

I. Executive Summary

This memorandum sets forth the recommended case strategy for the representation of Marguerite Delphine Fonseca (DOB June 14, 1984) in a custody and parenting-plan dispute currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, under Case No. 22STFL09847. Ms. Fonseca is a Senior Vice President of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a major entertainment company headquartered in Burbank, California. Calderwood & Harkness LLP was engaged to represent Ms. Fonseca in connection with custody, visitation, and child support issues arising from the dissolution of her domestic partnership with Rafael Joaquín Medrano (DOB March 22, 1982), a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who operates professionally through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC.

The parties registered their domestic partnership on September 12, 2015, under California Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741. Ms. Fonseca filed a petition for dissolution of the domestic partnership on July 8, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the Superior Court entered a judgment of dissolution that terminated the domestic partnership and resolved all property and debt issues, but expressly reserved continuing jurisdiction over custody, visitation, and child support concerning the parties' two minor children. It is these reserved issues that form the basis of the current engagement.

Calderwood & Harkness opened this matter on April 18, 2023. Ms. Fonseca executed the firm's engagement letter on that same date, and the firm received a retainer deposit of $50,000.00 on April 20, 2023, which has been deposited into the firm's client trust account.

The two minor children at issue are:

• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, DOB February 11, 2017 (age 6); and

• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, DOB August 29, 2019 (age 3).

Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located in Sherman Oaks, California, where Isabela is in first grade and Mateo is in pre-kindergarten.

Our primary objective is to negotiate a comprehensive custody agreement, parenting plan, and child support arrangement that serves the best interests of the children while reflecting Ms. Fonseca's role as the primary caretaker and the stable, custodial anchor in the children's lives. We strongly recommend pursuing this objective through good-faith settlement negotiations and mediation wherever possible, reserving contested litigation as a contingency. Settlement will preserve the co-parenting relationship, protect both parties' privacy (an important consideration given both parties' prominence in the entertainment industry), and avoid the unpredictability and emotional toll of a contested custody hearing.

This memorandum provides a detailed analysis of the procedural history, the applicable legal framework, our client's strengths and risk factors, a proposed custody and timeshare framework, child support strategy, a proposed timeline with specific action items, and budget and staffing considerations. This memorandum is submitted for your review and approval before we proceed with the filing of a Request for Order.

II. Procedural Background

A. Dissolution History

The parties' domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under File No. DP-2015-038741. Marguerite D. Fonseca and Rafael J. Medrano were never legally married; their legal relationship was established and governed exclusively by the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (Family Code §§ 297–299.6). As registered domestic partners, they possessed all of the same legal rights, protections, and benefits, and were subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under California law as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Ms. Fonseca filed a petition for dissolution of the domestic partnership on July 8, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The case was assigned Case No. 22STFL09847 and is pending before the family law department at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The parties were able to reach an agreement on the division of assets and debts relatively expeditiously, and a judgment of dissolution was entered on November 3, 2022. Critically, however, the judgment did not resolve the custody and support issues. Rather, the court expressly reserved continuing jurisdiction over (1) legal and physical custody of the two minor children, (2) a parenting plan and visitation schedule, and (3) child support. These reserved issues now form the subject matter of the current engagement and the strategy set forth in this memorandum.

It bears emphasizing that the dissolution of a registered domestic partnership in California confers identical custody and support rights as a marital dissolution. There is no difference in the legal standard or procedural framework that applies. The court will analyze custody and support issues under the same provisions of the Family Code that apply to divorcing spouses.

B. Breakdown of the Informal Custody Arrangement

Following the entry of the dissolution judgment in November 2022, the parties operated under an informal, unwritten custody arrangement. Under this arrangement, both children spent approximately equal time with each parent, splitting their overnights between Ms. Fonseca's residence in Studio City and Mr. Medrano's residence in North Hollywood. This arrangement was based entirely on the parties' mutual goodwill and verbal understandings; it was never reduced to a written agreement or court order.

The informal arrangement began to break down in early 2023. In approximately mid-February 2023, Mr. Medrano accepted a seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, for a major streaming platform production. His departure was relatively abrupt, with approximately ten days' notice to Ms. Fonseca. During the entirety of his seven-week absence — from approximately February 20, 2023 through April 10, 2023 — Ms. Fonseca served as the de facto sole custodial parent, managing all aspects of the children's daily lives, including school drop-off and pick-up, medical appointments, extracurricular activities, and general supervision.

Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the manner in which it occurred crystallized Ms. Fonseca's determination that a formal, court-ordered custody and parenting plan was necessary to provide structure, predictability, and legal enforceability. The informal arrangement, while amicable in principle, proved insufficient to protect the children's need for stability, particularly given the inherent unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's freelance work in the film and television industry. It was this event that directly precipitated Ms. Fonseca's engagement of Calderwood & Harkness.

C. Current Status

Calderwood & Harkness was formally engaged on April 18, 2023, when Ms. Fonseca executed the firm's standard engagement letter for family law representation. The retainer deposit of $50,000.00 was received on April 20, 2023. The following attorneys are assigned to the matter:

The estimated total attorney fees for this matter range from $120,000 to $175,000, depending principally on whether the matter resolves through a negotiated settlement or mediation, or whether it proceeds to a contested custody hearing or trial. This estimate does not include third-party costs such as the custody evaluator, forensic accountant, mediator, and filing fees, which are estimated separately below.

Opposing counsel in this matter is the law firm of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP ("KD&S"), located at 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505. The lead attorney representing Mr. Medrano is Gwendolyn R. Kwan, a well-known family law practitioner in the Los Angeles area and a certified family law specialist. Ms. Kwan's California State Bar number is 218453. She is assisted by an associate attorney, Benjamin T. Okafor (CA State Bar No. 312776). KD&S is a respected boutique family law firm with a reputation for aggressive but professional representation. Ms. Kwan is a skilled negotiator and an effective advocate in court. We should expect competent and thorough opposition at every stage.

III. Legal Framework

A. California Family Code — Custody Standards

The California Family Code establishes a comprehensive framework for custody determinations applicable to the dissolution of both marriages and registered domestic partnerships. The key statutory provisions are as follows.

Legal Custody vs. Physical Custody. California law distinguishes between legal custody and physical custody. "Legal custody" refers to the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child (Family Code § 3003). "Physical custody" refers to the parent with whom the child is placed and encompasses the time each parent spends with the child (Family Code § 3004). Both legal custody and physical custody may be held jointly by both parents or solely by one parent. "Joint legal custody" means that both parents share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child (Family Code § 3003). "Joint physical custody" means that each parent shall have significant periods of physical custody, and the arrangement shall be arranged to ensure that the child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents (Family Code § 3004).

Joint Custody Presumption and Policy Favoring Contact with Both Parents. The Legislature has declared it the public policy of California to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court's primary concern in determining the best interests of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children. In addition, the Legislature has declared that children have the right to frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage or domestic partnership, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing (Family Code § 3020). This policy is a powerful backdrop to all custody proceedings and will inform both the court's analysis and the negotiating posture of opposing counsel.

Best-Interests-of-the-Child Standard. All custody determinations are governed by the best-interests-of-the-child standard under Family Code § 3011. In making a determination of the best interests of the child, the court considers, among other factors:

(a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child;

(b) Any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against a child, the other parent, or any person with whom the parent has a dating or engagement relationship;

(d) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent; and

(e) Any other factors the court finds relevant.

With respect to this matter, there is no allegation or evidence of abuse (factor (b)) or substance abuse (factor (d)) by either party. The case will be determined primarily on factors (a), (c), and (e) — the children's health, safety, and welfare; the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and other relevant factors such as each parent's stability, availability, and ability to facilitate a cooperative co-parenting relationship.

Applicability to Domestic Partnership Dissolution. As noted above, California law extends the identical custody rights and obligations to registered domestic partners as it does to married spouses. The dissolution of a registered domestic partnership is governed by the same provisions of the Family Code applicable to marital dissolution (Family Code § 299). There is no legal distinction between the custody framework applicable to former spouses and former domestic partners.

B. California Family Code — Child Support

Guideline Child Support Calculation. California employs an algebraic formula for the calculation of child support, codified at Family Code § 4055 et seq. The guideline amount is presumptively correct and may only be deviated from in limited circumstances. The formula incorporates both parents' net disposable income and the percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children. The guideline formula is commonly computed using the DissoMaster software program, which is the standard tool in California family courts.

Income of Both Parents. The guideline calculation requires a determination of both parents' gross income from all sources. For a parent who is employed in a traditional salaried position, income determination is generally straightforward. However, for a self-employed or freelance parent — as Mr. Medrano is — the determination of income can be substantially more complex. Family Code § 4058(b) provides that the court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent's income, consistent with the best interests of the children. This provision is particularly relevant where a parent's income is variable, where a parent has the ability to earn more than currently demonstrated, or where a parent structures income through a business entity in a manner that may understate personal income.

Mr. Medrano operates as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a loan-out entity. Loan-out entities are common in the entertainment industry and serve legitimate tax-planning purposes, but they also create complexity in income determination for support purposes. The court will look through the loan-out entity to determine the income actually available to Mr. Medrano, including not only salary and distributions from the LLC but also any personal expenses paid through the entity, retained earnings that could be distributed, and any other economic benefits flowing from the entity.

Timeshare Percentage. The percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children is a critical variable in the guideline formula. Under the algebraic formula, the higher the custodial parent's timeshare, the lower the guideline support obligation of the higher-earning custodial parent (in a case where the custodial parent is the higher earner, which is the situation here). Conversely, if timeshare moves closer to 50/50, the support obligation increases, because the lower-earning parent's need to maintain a comparable household for the children becomes greater relative to the custodial time.

Deviation from Guideline. Family Code § 4057(b) permits deviation from the guideline amount of child support under specified circumstances. Of particular relevance here, a deviation is permissible where the parties stipulate to a different amount and certain conditions are met, including that both parents are represented by counsel, the stipulated amount is not unjust or inappropriate, and the needs of the children are adequately met. If we can construct a comprehensive package that offsets the guideline support through cost-sharing mechanisms (such as Mr. Medrano bearing a proportionally higher share of certain child-rearing expenses), a stipulated deviation below guideline may be achievable. This avenue will be explored in detail in a separate memorandum.

Forensic Accounting. Given the complexity of Mr. Medrano's income structure as a freelance professional operating through a loan-out entity, it is essential that we retain a forensic accountant to analyze his earnings. The forensic accountant will review Mr. Medrano's personal and business tax returns, bank statements, profit and loss statements, and other financial records to determine his true income available for support purposes. This analysis will be critical both for the guideline calculation and for negotiations.

C. Custody Evaluation

Family Code § 3111 authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator to conduct an investigation and render a report and recommendation regarding custody and visitation. The evaluation typically includes interviews with both parents, interviews with the children (depending on age and developmental capacity), home visits to both residences, psychological testing of the parents, collateral contact interviews (with teachers, pediatricians, family members, and other relevant persons), and a review of relevant documents.

The evaluator's report and recommendations, while not binding on the court, carry substantial weight in both contested hearings and settlement negotiations. A favorable custody evaluation report is often the single most influential piece of evidence in a custody dispute. Conversely, an unfavorable report can be extremely difficult to overcome.

We recommend that the parties stipulate to the appointment of a private custody evaluator rather than relying on a court-appointed evaluator through the Family Court Services division. Both parties have the financial resources to retain a private evaluator, and a private evaluator typically provides a more thorough and timely evaluation than the overburdened court system. The private evaluator we recommend is identified in Section VIII below.

D. Minor's Counsel

Family Code § 3150 authorizes the court to appoint counsel for the minor children in a custody proceeding. The appointment of minor's counsel is discretionary and is typically ordered in cases involving complex custody disputes, allegations of abuse (not applicable here), or situations where the children's interests may not be adequately represented by either parent's counsel.

Given the ages of the children (six and three), the complexity of the scheduling issues raised by both parents' careers, and the general practice of the Los Angeles Superior Court family law departments, we anticipate that the court may appoint minor's counsel either on its own motion or upon request by one of the parties. Minor's counsel will have independent standing to investigate the circumstances, interview the children (to the extent developmentally appropriate), consult with the custody evaluator, and advocate for the children's best interests at any hearing or mediation.

The appointment of minor's counsel is generally a positive development from our client's perspective. An independent advocate focused on the children's best interests should, if the facts bear out as we expect, align with our position that the children's primary residence should be with Ms. Fonseca during the school year. We should welcome and cooperate fully with any appointed minor's counsel.

E. Confidentiality and Sealing

Both parties in this matter are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca is a senior executive at Luminos Entertainment Group, one of the most prominent entertainment companies in the United States. Mr. Medrano is a known cinematographer whose credits include several high-profile film and television projects. The details of their custody dispute — including financial information, personal schedules, parenting practices, and the custody evaluator's assessments — are highly sensitive and, if made publicly available through the court file, could attract media attention that would be harmful to the children.

The children's privacy interests are paramount. The public disclosure of details about their school, their daily routines, their emotional well-being as assessed by a custody evaluator, or the financial circumstances of their parents' dispute could subject them to unwanted attention and intrusion.

We recommend seeking a sealing order at the earliest opportunity under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. Under Rule 2.550, a court may order that a record be sealed only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. The privacy interests of the minor children, combined with the public profiles of both parents, present a compelling basis for a sealing order. We anticipate that opposing counsel will agree to a stipulated sealing order, as Mr. Medrano has the same interest in protecting the children's privacy and his own.

IV. Client's Position — Strengths

A. Primary Caretaker History

Ms. Fonseca has been the primary caretaker of both children throughout the domestic partnership and in the period since the dissolution. During the years of the domestic partnership, it was Ms. Fonseca who managed the overwhelming majority of the children's day-to-day care, including morning routines, school preparation, school drop-off and pick-up, meal preparation, bedtime routines, and weekend activities. While Mr. Medrano was an involved and caring father when present, his frequent travel for on-location production work — which is inherent in his profession as a cinematographer — meant that he was regularly absent from the family home for weeks at a time.

Since the dissolution in November 2022, Ms. Fonseca has continued in this primary caretaker role. The breakdown of the informal custody arrangement in February–April 2023, when Mr. Medrano accepted the seven-week Vancouver assignment, further underscored Ms. Fonseca's role as the stable, continuously present custodial parent. During that seven-week period, Ms. Fonseca was solely responsible for all aspects of the children's care without interruption.

Ms. Fonseca has maintained a stable residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. This has been the family home since 2018, and it is the residence most closely identified by the children as "home." The home is a three-bedroom condominium in a well-maintained building, with a dedicated bedroom for each child. The residence is located within a short commute of Ridgeview Academy in Sherman Oaks and Ms. Fonseca's office in Burbank, facilitating efficient school transportation and allowing Ms. Fonseca to be available for the children before and after school.

Ms. Fonseca has been the parent primarily responsible for all enrollment and administrative decisions related to the children's education at Ridgeview Academy, including the initial enrollment applications, parent-teacher conferences, school events, and coordination with teachers and administrators. She has also been the parent who manages the children's medical and dental appointments, maintaining the relationship with the children's pediatrician (Dr. Alicia Reyes, Valley Pediatric Associates, Sherman Oaks) and dentist (Dr. James Forester, Forester Pediatric Dentistry, Encino).

Under California case law, the primary caretaker's established pattern of care is a significant factor in the court's best-interests analysis, even though California does not formally apply a "primary caretaker presumption." The practical reality is that courts strongly favor maintaining continuity and stability for children, and a parent who has been the primary caretaker is well-positioned to argue that the status quo should be preserved.

B. Stability of Residence and Employment

Ms. Fonseca has a remarkably stable employment history and residential situation, both of which weigh in her favor in any custody determination.

Ms. Fonseca has been employed by Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. since 2017 — a tenure of over six years. She currently holds the title of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development, overseeing a portfolio of approximately eighteen original series across various genres. Luminos Entertainment Group is headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. Ms. Fonseca's work is primarily office-based in Burbank, which is within a fifteen-to-twenty-minute commute of both her residence in Studio City and the children's school in Sherman Oaks. While her role involves significant responsibility and demanding hours, her work environment is predictable and geographically stable. She works from the same office location every day, and her schedule, while busy, is generally consistent and can be planned weeks or months in advance.

Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation is as follows:

This level of income provides Ms. Fonseca with the financial capacity to maintain a high standard of living for the children, to absorb the cost of private school tuition, to provide excellent healthcare through her employer-sponsored plan, and to ensure that the children's material needs are fully met.

Her residential stability — she has lived at the same Studio City address since 2018 — is another significant factor. The children have deep roots in the Studio City/Sherman Oaks community. They attend school, have friends, and engage in activities in this area. Maintaining their primary residence with Ms. Fonseca preserves this continuity.

C. Mr. Medrano's Variable Travel Schedule

The nature of Mr. Medrano's career as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography is the single most significant factor distinguishing the two parties' respective capacity to serve as the primary custodial parent during the school year. Mr. Medrano's work requires him to travel to on-location production sites, often for extended periods. The Vancouver assignment — seven weeks — is not an aberration; it is representative of the nature of his profession. Film and television production work frequently requires cinematographers to be on location for weeks or months at a time, and these assignments may arise on relatively short notice.

Mr. Medrano's income is variable, commensurate with the freelance nature of his work. His earnings flow through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a single-member limited liability company that serves as a loan-out entity. Based on our preliminary review of available information, Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is approximately $340,000, though this figure is subject to verification through the forensic analysis described below. His income may vary substantially from year to year depending on the number, length, and budget level of the productions on which he works.

The inherent unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's work schedule is incompatible with a primary custodial role during the school year, when the children's needs for consistency — regular school attendance, consistent bedtime routines, stable morning preparations, reliable after-school care — are greatest. A court assessing the best interests of the children will consider whether each parent can provide the consistent, day-to-day structure that young children require, and Ms. Fonseca is far better positioned to do so.

D. Children's Educational Continuity

Both children are enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a well-regarded private school in Sherman Oaks, California. Isabela is currently in first grade, with an annual tuition of $32,400. Mateo is in the pre-kindergarten program, with an annual tuition of $26,800. Total annual tuition for both children is $59,200.

Ridgeview Academy is located in close proximity to Ms. Fonseca's residence in Studio City (approximately a ten-minute commute) and to her office in Burbank (approximately a fifteen-minute commute). Mr. Medrano's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apt. 12, North Hollywood, California 91602 is also within a reasonable commuting distance of the school — approximately twenty minutes — but as discussed above, the logistical challenge for Mr. Medrano is not distance per se, but rather the frequency and duration of his absences from the Los Angeles area due to his work.

Maintaining the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy and ensuring continuity in their educational environment is a priority for Ms. Fonseca and a strong argument in favor of designating her residence as the children's primary home during the school year.

E. Financial Capacity

Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation of approximately $870,000 positions her as the parent with significantly greater financial capacity. She is able to provide the children with a high standard of living, including:

• A stable, well-appointed residence in a desirable neighborhood;

• Private school education at Ridgeview Academy;

• Comprehensive health insurance through her employer-sponsored plan with Veridian Health Insurance Co. (under the Luminos Entertainment Group group health plan);

• Extracurricular activities, summer programs, and enrichment opportunities; and

• A reliable, consistent home environment supported by her financial stability.

While financial capacity alone is not determinative of custody — and the court will not simply award custody to the wealthier parent — it is a relevant factor in the best-interests analysis insofar as it relates to the children's health, safety, and welfare.

V. Client's Position — Weaknesses and Risk Factors

A candid assessment of our client's position requires acknowledgment of several weaknesses and risk factors that will likely be raised by opposing counsel or that may affect the court's analysis. It is important that we address these proactively and manage Ms. Fonseca's expectations accordingly.

A. Income Disparity and Support Obligation

The most significant counterintuitive aspect of this case from the client's perspective is the child support calculation. Under the California guideline formula, child support is driven primarily by two variables: the relative incomes of the parents and the timeshare percentage. Because Ms. Fonseca's income ($870,000) is substantially higher than Mr. Medrano's income (approximately $340,000), she will be the obligor parent — meaning she will be required to pay child support to Mr. Medrano — even if she holds the majority timeshare.

This result often surprises clients, particularly clients who are the primary custodial parent and the higher earner. The rationale under California law is that the children are entitled to benefit from both parents' financial resources and to enjoy a comparable standard of living in both households. The guideline formula is designed to equalize, to a degree, the economic conditions of the two households in which the children will reside.

Our preliminary estimate, based on a 63–65% timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor and the income figures described above, suggests a guideline child support obligation of approximately $1,200 to $1,400 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This estimate is preliminary and will be refined through the DissoMaster analysis to be prepared by Nadia Petrov and the forensic income analysis to be performed by the retained accountant. It is essential that we communicate this to Ms. Fonseca clearly and early, to avoid any misunderstanding or dissatisfaction with a negotiated or court-ordered support amount.

B. Mr. Medrano's Parental Bond

Mr. Medrano is the biological father of both Isabela and Mateo, and by all accounts he has a loving, affectionate, and emotionally engaged relationship with both children. There is no allegation of abuse, neglect, or unfitness on his part. The children love their father and enjoy spending time with him. Any suggestion that Mr. Medrano is an inadequate or uninvolved parent would be factually unsupportable and strategically counterproductive.

The court will not view Mr. Medrano's travel for work as disqualifying. Travel for employment is a common feature of modern professional life, and California courts routinely craft custody arrangements that accommodate a parent's need to travel for work. Opposing counsel at KD&S will argue — with some justification — that Mr. Medrano has been an active, hands-on father during the periods when he is in Los Angeles, and that his absences for work are temporary and do not diminish the quality or significance of his relationship with the children.

We must be careful not to overplay our hand on this issue. Our argument is not that Mr. Medrano is an unfit or uninvolved parent; rather, it is that the structure and predictability of Ms. Fonseca's life make her the more appropriate primary custodial parent during the school year, when consistency is most critical. This is a nuanced distinction that must be maintained throughout our advocacy.

C. Potential Argument Regarding Ms. Fonseca's Work Demands

Although Ms. Fonseca's work is primarily office-based and geographically stable, her role as SVP of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group is undeniably demanding. She oversees a portfolio of approximately eighteen original series, which involves long hours, evening and weekend work, and occasional travel for production oversight, network presentations, industry events, premieres, and upfront presentations. During peak periods — such as pilot season or major series launches — her work demands can be intense.

Opposing counsel will almost certainly argue that Ms. Fonseca's demanding career limits her availability to the children in a manner analogous to Mr. Medrano's travel schedule, and that her ability to be present for the children on a daily basis depends substantially on third-party caregivers, nannies, or after-school care programs. This argument, while overstated, is not entirely without merit, and we should be prepared to address it.

Our response should emphasize several points. First, Ms. Fonseca's work schedule is predictable in a way that Mr. Medrano's is not. She works from the same office every day, and while her hours may be long, she is rarely absent from the Los Angeles area for more than a day or two at a time. Second, Ms. Fonseca has structured her life to prioritize her children's daily needs — she handles morning routines, is available for after-school pick-up most days, and is present for bedtime routines. Third, while Ms. Fonseca does occasionally rely on supplemental childcare, this is typical for a working parent at her level and does not diminish her role as the primary caretaker.

We should, however, avoid over-reliance on the argument that Ms. Fonseca employs nannies or caregivers as a supporting factor. Opposing counsel could turn this against us by arguing that the children's care is being substantially delegated to third parties. Our emphasis should remain on Ms. Fonseca's direct involvement, her physical presence, and the structural advantages of her geographic stability.

D. No Presumption Favoring One Parent

California law does not presume that one parent is more suitable than the other based on gender, income level, or any other characteristic outside of the best-interests analysis. Family Code § 3040 provides that custody should be granted to either parent according to the best interests of the child, without preference based on the sex of the parent. This means that Mr. Medrano enters the custody dispute on equal legal footing with Ms. Fonseca, and he will advocate vigorously — as he is entitled to do — for as close to an equal timeshare as his work schedule permits.

If Mr. Medrano can demonstrate that his travel is concentrated in certain periods and that he is reliably available during other periods, he may argue for an alternating schedule or a timeshare that approaches 50/50 during the months when he is not on assignment. A 50/50 timeshare would not only provide him with more time with the children but would also significantly reduce or eliminate the child support he would receive from Ms. Fonseca, which creates a financial incentive for him to push for equal time.

We must be prepared for this argument and counter it with evidence that the children's need for a consistent, predictable routine during the school year is best served by a primary-residence arrangement with Ms. Fonseca, supplemented by generous parenting time for Mr. Medrano structured around his availability.

VI. Proposed Custody and Timeshare Framework

Based on the foregoing analysis, we recommend pursuing the following custody and timeshare framework in negotiations and, if necessary, in court proceedings.

A. Legal Custody

We recommend seeking joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca on educational decisions. Joint legal custody is the norm in California and reflects the court's strong preference for shared decision-making between parents. However, given that Ms. Fonseca has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's education — she researched schools, completed the enrollment applications for Ridgeview Academy, has attended all parent-teacher conferences, and has managed communications with the school administration — it is reasonable to request that she hold tie-breaking authority on educational matters in the event the parents cannot agree.

Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions is a commonly granted arrangement in cases where one parent has taken the lead on educational matters and where the parties have demonstrated an inability to agree on a mechanism for joint decision-making. It does not strip Mr. Medrano of his right to participate in educational decisions or to be consulted on all significant issues; it simply provides a mechanism for resolution in the event of an impasse.

We recommend that all other legal custody decisions — healthcare, extracurricular activities, religious instruction (if any), and other matters relating to the children's welfare — remain subject to joint decision-making without a tie-breaker, with mediation as the dispute-resolution mechanism if the parents cannot agree.

B. Physical Custody — School Year

We recommend seeking joint physical custody with Ms. Fonseca's residence designated as the children's primary residence during the school year (defined as the first day of school through the last day of school at Ridgeview Academy, typically early September through mid-June). Our target timeshare during the school year is approximately 65% Fonseca / 35% Medrano.

This target reflects the current de facto arrangement, accounts for Mr. Medrano's travel schedule, and preserves meaningful and substantial parenting time for Mr. Medrano when he is in the Los Angeles area. A 65/35 split during the school year is well within the range of typical joint physical custody arrangements in California and should not be viewed as an aggressive demand. It also reflects the reality that during periods when Mr. Medrano is traveling for work, Ms. Fonseca will have the children exclusively, which naturally increases her timeshare percentage.

The specific school-year schedule we propose to develop would include the following components:

• Every other weekend, Friday after school through Monday morning school drop-off, with Mr. Medrano having physical custody. This provides two-night weekends on an alternating basis.

• One midweek overnight per week with Mr. Medrano, on a designated weekday (e.g., Wednesday after school through Thursday morning school drop-off), subject to Mr. Medrano's availability and not being on an out-of-town assignment.

• Flexibility provisions allowing Mr. Medrano to swap his midweek or weekend custody days to accommodate his work schedule, with reasonable advance notice (e.g., 72 hours for a midweek swap, seven days for a weekend swap).

• Right of first refusal: if either parent will be away from the children for more than 24 consecutive hours during their custodial time, the other parent has the right of first refusal to care for the children before a third-party caregiver is engaged.

This schedule, when calculated over the course of a typical school year, should yield approximately 65% overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 35% overnights with Mr. Medrano, consistent with our target.

C. Physical Custody — Summer

We recommend proposing a 50/50 split during the summer break. The summer break at Ridgeview Academy is approximately ten weeks (70 days). Under this proposal, each parent would have 35 overnights during the summer. The specific schedule would involve alternating two-week blocks, with the first block going to the parent who did not have the children on the last weekend of the school year.

Offering a 50/50 summer split serves two important strategic purposes. First, it is generous to Mr. Medrano and demonstrates Ms. Fonseca's genuine commitment to co-parenting and to ensuring that the children have a strong, meaningful relationship with their father. Courts and mediators respond favorably to a parent who facilitates the other parent's relationship with the children. Second, the summer is the period when Mr. Medrano's work schedule is often less demanding (although not always), making it more feasible for him to provide consistent, hands-on custody for extended periods.

D. Holiday Rotation

We recommend proposing a standard alternating even-year/odd-year holiday schedule, as follows:

This is a standard and widely accepted holiday rotation schedule that provides predictability for both parents and the children.

E. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions

Given the central role that work-related travel plays in this dispute, we recommend proposing detailed travel and on-location work provisions that protect the children's stability while accommodating the realities of both parents' careers.

Extended Work-Related Absence. If either parent accepts work or other commitments requiring travel of more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days, custodial time for those days shall automatically transfer to the other parent. The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up custodial time, to be scheduled by mutual agreement within sixty (60) calendar days following the traveling parent's return. If the parties cannot agree on the make-up schedule, the matter shall be submitted to mediation. This provision addresses the core issue that precipitated this filing — Mr. Medrano's seven-week Vancouver absence — and ensures that extended absences result in the children being cared for by their other parent rather than by third-party caregivers.

International Travel with Children. Either parent desiring to travel internationally with either or both children shall provide the other parent with no less than thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice, including the destination, dates of travel, accommodations, and emergency contact information. International travel with the children shall require the written consent of the other parent or, in the event consent is withheld, a court order authorizing the travel. Both parents shall cooperate in obtaining or maintaining valid passports for the children.

Domestic Travel Outside California with Children. Either parent desiring to travel outside the State of California with either or both children shall provide the other parent with no less than fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice, including the destination, dates of travel, accommodations, and emergency contact information.

These provisions balance each parent's right to travel with the children against the other parent's right to know where the children are and to consent to significant travel. They are consistent with standard provisions in high-asset family law custody agreements and should be viewed as reasonable by the court, opposing counsel, and any mediator.

VII. Child Support Strategy

A. Income Analysis

The child support calculation under the California guideline requires a precise determination of each parent's gross income from all sources. The parties' respective income positions are as follows:

Marguerite D. Fonseca. Ms. Fonseca's income is relatively straightforward to calculate. Her gross monthly income, inclusive of base salary, average annual bonus, and average annual RSU vesting, is approximately $72,500 per month ($870,000 ÷ 12). Her income is documented through W-2 forms, Luminos Entertainment Group compensation statements, and brokerage records reflecting RSU vesting and sales. We will prepare an Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) reflecting her current income and expenses.

Rafael J. Medrano. Mr. Medrano's income determination is significantly more complex. As a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, his income is variable from month to month and year to year, depending on the number and scale of the projects on which he works. His income flows through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a single-member limited liability company that is treated as a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes. The LLC invoices production companies for Mr. Medrano's services and receives payment, from which it pays Mr. Medrano a salary and covers certain business expenses.

Our preliminary understanding, based on information provided by Ms. Fonseca and publicly available production credit databases, is that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is approximately $340,000 ($28,333 per month). However, this figure must be verified and may be understated if Mr. Medrano retains earnings in the LLC, pays personal expenses through the LLC, or benefits from other economic perquisites of the entity.

Forensic Accountant Engagement. We strongly recommend retaining Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, to perform a comprehensive forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's earnings and the financial operations of Medrano Visuals, LLC. Mr. Yamamoto is a certified public accountant accredited in business valuation (ABV) and certified in financial forensics (CFF). He has extensive experience in high-asset family law matters in the Los Angeles area and has been qualified as an expert witness in the Los Angeles Superior Court on numerous occasions. His proposed engagement fee for this matter is a flat fee of $14,750, which covers the review of tax returns, financial statements, bank records, and related documents, preparation of a report, and one deposition or hearing appearance.

The forensic income analysis will provide a defensible basis for the child support calculation and will be an essential tool in negotiations. We recommend that the engagement letter with Yamamoto Brace & Liu be executed and sent within the next week.

Combined Gross Monthly Income. On a preliminary basis, the combined gross monthly income of both parents is approximately $100,833 ($72,500 for Ms. Fonseca plus $28,333 for Mr. Medrano). This figure will be refined as more precise income data becomes available.

B. Guideline Calculation

Under the California guideline formula (Family Code § 4055), the child support amount for two children at the income levels described above and a 63–65% timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor will result in a support obligation payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. The exact amount is sensitive to precise income figures, allowable deductions, and the exact timeshare percentage, all of which will be inputted into the DissoMaster software program.

Nadia Petrov will prepare a detailed child support guideline analysis memorandum that includes DissoMaster runs at multiple timeshare scenarios (55/45, 60/40, 63/37, 65/35, and 70/30) using both the preliminary income estimates and revised estimates once the forensic analysis is completed. This will allow us to see how the guideline amount varies with different timeshare percentages, which is critical information for structuring our custody and support proposals. That memorandum is expected by approximately May 15, 2023.

The amount of guideline support will be moderated by Ms. Fonseca's majority timeshare. Under the formula, the more time the higher-earning parent spends with the children, the lower the support obligation, because the higher earner is directly providing for the children's needs during that custodial time. This provides a financial incentive that is aligned with our custody objective: the more custodial time we secure for Ms. Fonseca, the lower her support obligation will be.

C. Potential Deviation from Guideline

If we can negotiate a comprehensive settlement package in which Mr. Medrano agrees to bear a proportionally higher share of certain specific costs — such as extracurricular activity fees, summer camp costs, or after-school enrichment programs — we may be able to justify a stipulated deviation below guideline support under Family Code § 4057(b).

A stipulated deviation requires that: (1) both parties are represented by counsel (satisfied here); (2) the deviation is not unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances; (3) the needs of the children are adequately met by the stipulated amount; and (4) the right to support has not been bargained away in exchange for a concession on property or other non-support issues. If we can demonstrate that the total value of the support and cost-sharing package meets the children's needs, a modest deviation below guideline should be defensible.

A detailed legal analysis of the deviation strategy, including supporting case law and specific proposed cost-sharing provisions, will be prepared in a separate memorandum.

D. Education and Healthcare Costs

Tuition at Ridgeview Academy. We propose that tuition at Ridgeview Academy be shared between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes. Based on the preliminary income figures, this yields an approximately 70/30 split:

The 70/30 ratio is an approximation based on Ms. Fonseca's share of the parties' combined income ($870,000 ÷ $1,210,000 ≈ 72%). We may refine this ratio after the forensic income analysis is completed. A 70/30 split is reasonable and reflects the equitable principle that each parent should contribute to the children's educational expenses in proportion to their ability to do so.

Healthcare. Both children are currently covered under Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Veridian Health Insurance Co. (the Luminos Entertainment Group group health plan). This is a comprehensive plan with excellent coverage, and it is in the children's best interests to remain on this plan. We propose that Ms. Fonseca continue to maintain the children on her employer-sponsored plan at her expense, and that unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, vision, and therapeutic expenses be shared between the parties at the same 70/30 ratio as tuition. This arrangement ensures that the children receive high-quality healthcare coverage while requiring each parent to contribute to out-of-pocket costs proportionally.

VIII. Proposed Timeline and Action Items

The following timeline sets forth the key milestones and action items for this matter, organized by phase.

A. Immediate (Next 1–2 Weeks: April 25 – May 9, 2023)

1. Finalize and File Request for Order (RFO) re Custody and Child Support. We will prepare and file an RFO seeking temporary orders regarding legal custody, physical custody, a parenting schedule, and child support. The target filing date is May 2, 2023. The RFO will be supported by a detailed declaration from Ms. Fonseca and an Income and Expense Declaration. The RFO will request a hearing at the earliest available date, which we anticipate will be approximately six to eight weeks from filing.

2. Prepare and File Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca in Support of RFO. Devon Archer will draft the client declaration, setting forth the relevant factual background, the history of Ms. Fonseca's role as primary caretaker, the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement, and the proposed parenting plan. The declaration will be factual, measured in tone, and focused on the children's best interests — not adversarial toward Mr. Medrano. Ms. Fonseca will review and sign the declaration under penalty of perjury.

3. Prepare and File Income and Expense Declaration (FL-150). Nadia Petrov will prepare the Income and Expense Declaration for Ms. Fonseca, reflecting her current income from all sources (base salary, bonus, RSU vesting), monthly expenses, and the children's monthly expenses. This is a mandatory filing in any proceeding involving child support.

4. Retain Harold K. Yamamoto / Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. We will send the engagement and scope letter to Mr. Yamamoto's firm within the next five business days, retaining him to perform the forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's earnings and the Medrano Visuals, LLC loan-out entity. The proposed flat fee is $14,750, payable from the client's retainer. The engagement letter will define the scope of work, the documents to be reviewed, and the timeline for completion of the report.

5. Child Support Guideline Analysis Memorandum. Nadia Petrov will prepare a comprehensive child support guideline analysis memorandum, including DissoMaster runs at multiple timeshare scenarios (55/45, 60/40, 63/37, 65/35, and 70/30), using the preliminary income estimates. This memorandum is expected by approximately May 15, 2023.

B. Short-Term (May–July 2023)

6. Seek Temporary Custody Order at Hearing on RFO. At the hearing on the RFO (anticipated approximately June–July 2023), we will seek a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor during the pendency of the proceedings. A temporary order is critical to establishing the status quo, which will influence the final custody determination. We are deliberately proposing a 60/40 temporary order — slightly less than our ultimate 65/35 target — to present a reasonable request to the court and to leave room for negotiation toward the final arrangement.

7. Meet-and-Confer with Opposing Counsel. We will initiate a meet-and-confer with Gwendolyn R. Kwan at KD&S to discuss the parties' respective custody proposals and the possibility of engaging a mediator to resolve the dispute without contested hearings. The meet-and-confer will be conducted professionally and in a spirit of good faith, consistent with our strategy of pursuing settlement wherever possible. We expect Ms. Kwan to be receptive to a mediation-oriented approach, as both clients benefit from a private resolution.

8. Anticipate Appointment of Minor's Counsel. As discussed above, we anticipate that the court may appoint counsel for the minor children pursuant to Family Code § 3150, either on its own motion at the RFO hearing or in response to a request by one of the parties. We should welcome this appointment and cooperate fully with minor's counsel. If the court does not raise the issue, we should consider requesting it, as an independent advocate for the children is likely to align with our client's position.

9. Stipulate to Appointment of Private Custody Evaluator. We recommend stipulating with opposing counsel to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., located in Encino, California, as the private custody evaluator. Dr. Sorensen is a highly respected forensic psychologist specializing in child custody evaluations. She has been court-appointed and privately retained in numerous high-profile family law matters in the Los Angeles Superior Court and has an excellent reputation for thoroughness, objectivity, and professionalism. Her estimated fee for a comprehensive custody evaluation involving two children and two parents is approximately $18,500, to be split equally between the parties ($9,250 per party). If opposing counsel will not stipulate to Dr. Sorensen, we will propose two to three alternative evaluators for consideration.

10. File Stipulation and Proposed Order to Seal the Court File. As discussed in Section III.E, we recommend filing a stipulated motion to seal the court file under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. We anticipate that opposing counsel will agree to this stipulation, given both parties' interest in protecting the children's privacy and their own public profiles. We will prepare the stipulation, declaration in support, and proposed order for filing promptly after the meet-and-confer with opposing counsel.

C. Medium-Term (August–October 2023)

11. Cooperate with Custody Evaluation Process. Once the custody evaluator is appointed and begins the evaluation process, we will prepare Ms. Fonseca thoroughly for each phase of the evaluation, including:

• Individual parent interviews with Dr. Sorensen;

• Home visits to Ms. Fonseca's residence;

• Observation of parent-child interactions;

• Psychological testing (if ordered);

• Identification and coordination with collateral contacts (e.g., Ridgeview Academy teachers and administrators, the children's pediatrician, family friends, and other relevant individuals who can speak to Ms. Fonseca's parenting).

We will prepare a detailed memorandum for Ms. Fonseca advising her on how to present herself during the evaluation — not coaching her to be inauthentic, but ensuring that she understands the process, is comfortable with the format, and presents her best self. We will also coordinate with collateral contacts to ensure they are available and prepared to speak with the evaluator.

12. Receive and Analyze Custody Evaluation Report. Based on Dr. Sorensen's typical timeline, we estimate that the custody evaluation report will be completed approximately twelve weeks from the date of the appointment order, targeting October 2023. Once received, we will conduct a thorough analysis of the report, including its factual findings, clinical assessments, and recommendations regarding legal custody, physical custody, and the parenting schedule. The custody evaluation report will be the centerpiece of the mediation and, if necessary, of any contested hearing.

13. Receive and Analyze Forensic Accountant's Income Report. Mr. Yamamoto's forensic income analysis should be completed by approximately August–September 2023, depending on the availability of Mr. Medrano's financial records. If Mr. Medrano voluntarily produces his financial records in response to our discovery requests, the analysis may be completed sooner. If production is contested, it may be delayed. Once the forensic report is received, we will use the verified income figures to update the DissoMaster guideline calculations and refine our child support proposals for mediation.

D. Settlement/Mediation Phase (November 2023–January 2024)

14. Engage a Mediator. We recommend engaging Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) of Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, located at 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017, to serve as the mediator in this matter. Judge Yee is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who served for fifteen years on the family law bench and now specializes in the mediation and arbitration of high-asset family law disputes. She is widely respected by family law practitioners in the Los Angeles area and has a strong track record of resolving complex custody and support disputes. Her daily mediation rate is approximately $6,000, to be split equally between the parties.

15. Prepare Confidential Mediation Briefs. We will prepare comprehensive confidential mediation briefs to be submitted to Judge Yee in advance of the mediation sessions. The briefs will summarize the factual background, the parties' respective positions, the custody evaluation report (if available by this time), the forensic income analysis, the proposed parenting plan, and the child support proposals. The briefs will be persuasive but measured, designed to demonstrate the reasonableness of Ms. Fonseca's position and her commitment to a collaborative resolution.

16. Conduct Mediation Sessions. We anticipate two to three mediation sessions to reach a comprehensive agreement. The first session would focus on custody

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Priya Anand, Partner
From: Devon Archer, Lead Associate
Date: April 25, 2023
Re: Case Strategy — Fonseca Custody & Parenting Plan (Matter No. 1035-00002)
Client: Marguerite D. Fonseca
Court/Case: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse; Case No. 22STFL09847
I. Executive Summary
This memorandum sets forth the recommended case strategy for the representation of Marguerite Delphine Fonseca (DOB June 14, 1984) in a custody and parenting-plan dispute currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, under Case No. 22STFL09847. Ms. Fonseca is a Senior Vice President of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a major entertainment company headquartered in Burbank, California. Calderwood & Harkness LLP was engaged to represent Ms. Fonseca in connection with custody, visitation, and child support issues arising from the dissolution of her domestic partnership with Rafael Joaquín Medrano (DOB March 22, 1982), a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who operates professionally through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC.
The parties registered their domestic partnership on September 12, 2015, under California Secretary of State File No. DP-2015-038741. Ms. Fonseca filed a petition for dissolution of the domestic partnership on July 8, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the Superior Court entered a judgment of dissolution that terminated the domestic partnership and resolved all property and debt issues, but expressly reserved continuing jurisdiction over custody, visitation, and child support concerning the parties' two minor children. It is these reserved issues that form the basis of the current engagement.
Calderwood & Harkness opened this matter on April 18, 2023. Ms. Fonseca executed the firm's engagement letter on that same date, and the firm received a retainer deposit of $50,000.00 on April 20, 2023, which has been deposited into the firm's client trust account.
The two minor children at issue are:
•  Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, DOB February 11, 2017 (age 6); and
•  Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, DOB August 29, 2019 (age 3).
Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located in Sherman Oaks, California, where Isabela is in first grade and Mateo is in pre-kindergarten.
Our primary objective is to negotiate a comprehensive custody agreement, parenting plan, and child support arrangement that serves the best interests of the children while reflecting Ms. Fonseca's role as the primary caretaker and the stable, custodial anchor in the children's lives. We strongly recommend pursuing this objective through good-faith settlement negotiations and mediation wherever possible, reserving contested litigation as a contingency. Settlement will preserve the co-parenting relationship, protect both parties' privacy (an important consideration given both parties' prominence in the entertainment industry), and avoid the unpredictability and emotional toll of a contested custody hearing.
This memorandum provides a detailed analysis of the procedural history, the applicable legal framework, our client's strengths and risk factors, a proposed custody and timeshare framework, child support strategy, a proposed timeline with specific action items, and budget and staffing considerations. This memorandum is submitted for your review and approval before we proceed with the filing of a Request for Order.
II. Procedural Background
A. Dissolution History
The parties' domestic partnership was registered with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015, under File No. DP-2015-038741. Marguerite D. Fonseca and Rafael J. Medrano were never legally married; their legal relationship was established and governed exclusively by the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (Family Code §§ 297–299.6). As registered domestic partners, they possessed all of the same legal rights, protections, and benefits, and were subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under California law as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Ms. Fonseca filed a petition for dissolution of the domestic partnership on July 8, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The case was assigned Case No. 22STFL09847 and is pending before the family law department at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The parties were able to reach an agreement on the division of assets and debts relatively expeditiously, and a judgment of dissolution was entered on November 3, 2022. Critically, however, the judgment did not resolve the custody and support issues. Rather, the court expressly reserved continuing jurisdiction over (1) legal and physical custody of the two minor children, (2) a parenting plan and visitation schedule, and (3) child support. These reserved issues now form the subject matter of the current engagement and the strategy set forth in this memorandum.
It bears emphasizing that the dissolution of a registered domestic partnership in California confers identical custody and support rights as a marital dissolution. There is no difference in the legal standard or procedural framework that applies. The court will analyze custody and support issues under the same provisions of the Family Code that apply to divorcing spouses.
B. Breakdown of the Informal Custody Arrangement
Following the entry of the dissolution judgment in November 2022, the parties operated under an informal, unwritten custody arrangement. Under this arrangement, both children spent approximately equal time with each parent, splitting their overnights between Ms. Fonseca's residence in Studio City and Mr. Medrano's residence in North Hollywood. This arrangement was based entirely on the parties' mutual goodwill and verbal understandings; it was never reduced to a written agreement or court order.
The informal arrangement began to break down in early 2023. In approximately mid-February 2023, Mr. Medrano accepted a seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, for a major streaming platform production. His departure was relatively abrupt, with approximately ten days' notice to Ms. Fonseca. During the entirety of his seven-week absence — from approximately February 20, 2023 through April 10, 2023 — Ms. Fonseca served as the de facto sole custodial parent, managing all aspects of the children's daily lives, including school drop-off and pick-up, medical appointments, extracurricular activities, and general supervision.
Mr. Medrano's extended absence and the manner in which it occurred crystallized Ms. Fonseca's determination that a formal, court-ordered custody and parenting plan was necessary to provide structure, predictability, and legal enforceability. The informal arrangement, while amicable in principle, proved insufficient to protect the children's need for stability, particularly given the inherent unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's freelance work in the film and television industry. It was this event that directly precipitated Ms. Fonseca's engagement of Calderwood & Harkness.
C. Current Status
Calderwood & Harkness was formally engaged on April 18, 2023, when Ms. Fonseca executed the firm's standard engagement letter for family law representation. The retainer deposit of $50,000.00 was received on April 20, 2023. The following attorneys are assigned to the matter:
The estimated total attorney fees for this matter range from $120,000 to $175,000, depending principally on whether the matter resolves through a negotiated settlement or mediation, or whether it proceeds to a contested custody hearing or trial. This estimate does not include third-party costs such as the custody evaluator, forensic accountant, mediator, and filing fees, which are estimated separately below.
Opposing counsel in this matter is the law firm of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP ("KD&S"), located at 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505. The lead attorney representing Mr. Medrano is Gwendolyn R. Kwan, a well-known family law practitioner in the Los Angeles area and a certified family law specialist. Ms. Kwan's California State Bar number is 218453. She is assisted by an associate attorney, Benjamin T. Okafor (CA State Bar No. 312776). KD&S is a respected boutique family law firm with a reputation for aggressive but professional representation. Ms. Kwan is a skilled negotiator and an effective advocate in court. We should expect competent and thorough opposition at every stage.
III. Legal Framework
A. California Family Code — Custody Standards
The California Family Code establishes a comprehensive framework for custody determinations applicable to the dissolution of both marriages and registered domestic partnerships. The key statutory provisions are as follows.
Legal Custody vs. Physical Custody. California law distinguishes between legal custody and physical custody. "Legal custody" refers to the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child (Family Code § 3003). "Physical custody" refers to the parent with whom the child is placed and encompasses the time each parent spends with the child (Family Code § 3004). Both legal custody and physical custody may be held jointly by both parents or solely by one parent. "Joint legal custody" means that both parents share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child (Family Code § 3003). "Joint physical custody" means that each parent shall have significant periods of physical custody, and the arrangement shall be arranged to ensure that the child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents (Family Code § 3004).
Joint Custody Presumption and Policy Favoring Contact with Both Parents. The Legislature has declared it the public policy of California to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court's primary concern in determining the best interests of children when making any orders regarding the physical or legal custody or visitation of children. In addition, the Legislature has declared that children have the right to frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage or domestic partnership, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing (Family Code § 3020). This policy is a powerful backdrop to all custody proceedings and will inform both the court's analysis and the negotiating posture of opposing counsel.
Best-Interests-of-the-Child Standard. All custody determinations are governed by the best-interests-of-the-child standard under Family Code § 3011. In making a determination of the best interests of the child, the court considers, among other factors:
(a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child;
(b) Any history of abuse by one parent or any other person seeking custody against a child, the other parent, or any person with whom the parent has a dating or engagement relationship;
(c) The nature and amount of contact with both parents;
(d) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or habitual or continual abuse of alcohol by either parent; and
(e) Any other factors the court finds relevant.
With respect to this matter, there is no allegation or evidence of abuse (factor (b)) or substance abuse (factor (d)) by either party. The case will be determined primarily on factors (a), (c), and (e) — the children's health, safety, and welfare; the nature and amount of contact with both parents; and other relevant factors such as each parent's stability, availability, and ability to facilitate a cooperative co-parenting relationship.
Applicability to Domestic Partnership Dissolution. As noted above, California law extends the identical custody rights and obligations to registered domestic partners as it does to married spouses. The dissolution of a registered domestic partnership is governed by the same provisions of the Family Code applicable to marital dissolution (Family Code § 299). There is no legal distinction between the custody framework applicable to former spouses and former domestic partners.
B. California Family Code — Child Support
Guideline Child Support Calculation. California employs an algebraic formula for the calculation of child support, codified at Family Code § 4055 et seq. The guideline amount is presumptively correct and may only be deviated from in limited circumstances. The formula incorporates both parents' net disposable income and the percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children. The guideline formula is commonly computed using the DissoMaster software program, which is the standard tool in California family courts.
Income of Both Parents. The guideline calculation requires a determination of both parents' gross income from all sources. For a parent who is employed in a traditional salaried position, income determination is generally straightforward. However, for a self-employed or freelance parent — as Mr. Medrano is — the determination of income can be substantially more complex. Family Code § 4058(b) provides that the court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent's income, consistent with the best interests of the children. This provision is particularly relevant where a parent's income is variable, where a parent has the ability to earn more than currently demonstrated, or where a parent structures income through a business entity in a manner that may understate personal income.
Mr. Medrano operates as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a loan-out entity. Loan-out entities are common in the entertainment industry and serve legitimate tax-planning purposes, but they also create complexity in income determination for support purposes. The court will look through the loan-out entity to determine the income actually available to Mr. Medrano, including not only salary and distributions from the LLC but also any personal expenses paid through the entity, retained earnings that could be distributed, and any other economic benefits flowing from the entity.
Timeshare Percentage. The percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children is a critical variable in the guideline formula. Under the algebraic formula, the higher the custodial parent's timeshare, the lower the guideline support obligation of the higher-earning custodial parent (in a case where the custodial parent is the higher earner, which is the situation here). Conversely, if timeshare moves closer to 50/50, the support obligation increases, because the lower-earning parent's need to maintain a comparable household for the children becomes greater relative to the custodial time.
Deviation from Guideline. Family Code § 4057(b) permits deviation from the guideline amount of child support under specified circumstances. Of particular relevance here, a deviation is permissible where the parties stipulate to a different amount and certain conditions are met, including that both parents are represented by counsel, the stipulated amount is not unjust or inappropriate, and the needs of the children are adequately met. If we can construct a comprehensive package that offsets the guideline support through cost-sharing mechanisms (such as Mr. Medrano bearing a proportionally higher share of certain child-rearing expenses), a stipulated deviation below guideline may be achievable. This avenue will be explored in detail in a separate memorandum.
Forensic Accounting. Given the complexity of Mr. Medrano's income structure as a freelance professional operating through a loan-out entity, it is essential that we retain a forensic accountant to analyze his earnings. The forensic accountant will review Mr. Medrano's personal and business tax returns, bank statements, profit and loss statements, and other financial records to determine his true income available for support purposes. This analysis will be critical both for the guideline calculation and for negotiations.
C. Custody Evaluation
Family Code § 3111 authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator to conduct an investigation and render a report and recommendation regarding custody and visitation. The evaluation typically includes interviews with both parents, interviews with the children (depending on age and developmental capacity), home visits to both residences, psychological testing of the parents, collateral contact interviews (with teachers, pediatricians, family members, and other relevant persons), and a review of relevant documents.
The evaluator's report and recommendations, while not binding on the court, carry substantial weight in both contested hearings and settlement negotiations. A favorable custody evaluation report is often the single most influential piece of evidence in a custody dispute. Conversely, an unfavorable report can be extremely difficult to overcome.
We recommend that the parties stipulate to the appointment of a private custody evaluator rather than relying on a court-appointed evaluator through the Family Court Services division. Both parties have the financial resources to retain a private evaluator, and a private evaluator typically provides a more thorough and timely evaluation than the overburdened court system. The private evaluator we recommend is identified in Section VIII below.
D. Minor's Counsel
Family Code § 3150 authorizes the court to appoint counsel for the minor children in a custody proceeding. The appointment of minor's counsel is discretionary and is typically ordered in cases involving complex custody disputes, allegations of abuse (not applicable here), or situations where the children's interests may not be adequately represented by either parent's counsel.
Given the ages of the children (six and three), the complexity of the scheduling issues raised by both parents' careers, and the general practice of the Los Angeles Superior Court family law departments, we anticipate that the court may appoint minor's counsel either on its own motion or upon request by one of the parties. Minor's counsel will have independent standing to investigate the circumstances, interview the children (to the extent developmentally appropriate), consult with the custody evaluator, and advocate for the children's best interests at any hearing or mediation.
The appointment of minor's counsel is generally a positive development from our client's perspective. An independent advocate focused on the children's best interests should, if the facts bear out as we expect, align with our position that the children's primary residence should be with Ms. Fonseca during the school year. We should welcome and cooperate fully with any appointed minor's counsel.
E. Confidentiality and Sealing
Both parties in this matter are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca is a senior executive at Luminos Entertainment Group, one of the most prominent entertainment companies in the United States. Mr. Medrano is a known cinematographer whose credits include several high-profile film and television projects. The details of their custody dispute — including financial information, personal schedules, parenting practices, and the custody evaluator's assessments — are highly sensitive and, if made publicly available through the court file, could attract media attention that would be harmful to the children.
The children's privacy interests are paramount. The public disclosure of details about their school, their daily routines, their emotional well-being as assessed by a custody evaluator, or the financial circumstances of their parents' dispute could subject them to unwanted attention and intrusion.
We recommend seeking a sealing order at the earliest opportunity under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. Under Rule 2.550, a court may order that a record be sealed only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. The privacy interests of the minor children, combined with the public profiles of both parents, present a compelling basis for a sealing order. We anticipate that opposing counsel will agree to a stipulated sealing order, as Mr. Medrano has the same interest in protecting the children's privacy and his own.
IV. Client's Position — Strengths
A. Primary Caretaker History
Ms. Fonseca has been the primary caretaker of both children throughout the domestic partnership and in the period since the dissolution. During the years of the domestic partnership, it was Ms. Fonseca who managed the overwhelming majority of the children's day-to-day care, including morning routines, school preparation, school drop-off and pick-up, meal preparation, bedtime routines, and weekend activities. While Mr. Medrano was an involved and caring father when present, his frequent travel for on-location production work — which is inherent in his profession as a cinematographer — meant that he was regularly absent from the family home for weeks at a time.
Since the dissolution in November 2022, Ms. Fonseca has continued in this primary caretaker role. The breakdown of the informal custody arrangement in February–April 2023, when Mr. Medrano accepted the seven-week Vancouver assignment, further underscored Ms. Fonseca's role as the stable, continuously present custodial parent. During that seven-week period, Ms. Fonseca was solely responsible for all aspects of the children's care without interruption.
Ms. Fonseca has maintained a stable residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. This has been the family home since 2018, and it is the residence most closely identified by the children as "home." The home is a three-bedroom condominium in a well-maintained building, with a dedicated bedroom for each child. The residence is located within a short commute of Ridgeview Academy in Sherman Oaks and Ms. Fonseca's office in Burbank, facilitating efficient school transportation and allowing Ms. Fonseca to be available for the children before and after school.
Ms. Fonseca has been the parent primarily responsible for all enrollment and administrative decisions related to the children's education at Ridgeview Academy, including the initial enrollment applications, parent-teacher conferences, school events, and coordination with teachers and administrators. She has also been the parent who manages the children's medical and dental appointments, maintaining the relationship with the children's pediatrician (Dr. Alicia Reyes, Valley Pediatric Associates, Sherman Oaks) and dentist (Dr. James Forester, Forester Pediatric Dentistry, Encino).
Under California case law, the primary caretaker's established pattern of care is a significant factor in the court's best-interests analysis, even though California does not formally apply a "primary caretaker presumption." The practical reality is that courts strongly favor maintaining continuity and stability for children, and a parent who has been the primary caretaker is well-positioned to argue that the status quo should be preserved.
B. Stability of Residence and Employment
Ms. Fonseca has a remarkably stable employment history and residential situation, both of which weigh in her favor in any custody determination.
Ms. Fonseca has been employed by Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. since 2017 — a tenure of over six years. She currently holds the title of Senior Vice President, Original Content Development, overseeing a portfolio of approximately eighteen original series across various genres. Luminos Entertainment Group is headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. Ms. Fonseca's work is primarily office-based in Burbank, which is within a fifteen-to-twenty-minute commute of both her residence in Studio City and the children's school in Sherman Oaks. While her role involves significant responsibility and demanding hours, her work environment is predictable and geographically stable. She works from the same office location every day, and her schedule, while busy, is generally consistent and can be planned weeks or months in advance.
Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation is as follows:
This level of income provides Ms. Fonseca with the financial capacity to maintain a high standard of living for the children, to absorb the cost of private school tuition, to provide excellent healthcare through her employer-sponsored plan, and to ensure that the children's material needs are fully met.
Her residential stability — she has lived at the same Studio City address since 2018 — is another significant factor. The children have deep roots in the Studio City/Sherman Oaks community. They attend school, have friends, and engage in activities in this area. Maintaining their primary residence with Ms. Fonseca preserves this continuity.
C. Mr. Medrano's Variable Travel Schedule
The nature of Mr. Medrano's career as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography is the single most significant factor distinguishing the two parties' respective capacity to serve as the primary custodial parent during the school year. Mr. Medrano's work requires him to travel to on-location production sites, often for extended periods. The Vancouver assignment — seven weeks — is not an aberration; it is representative of the nature of his profession. Film and television production work frequently requires cinematographers to be on location for weeks or months at a time, and these assignments may arise on relatively short notice.
Mr. Medrano's income is variable, commensurate with the freelance nature of his work. His earnings flow through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a single-member limited liability company that serves as a loan-out entity. Based on our preliminary review of available information, Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is approximately $340,000, though this figure is subject to verification through the forensic analysis described below. His income may vary substantially from year to year depending on the number, length, and budget level of the productions on which he works.
The inherent unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's work schedule is incompatible with a primary custodial role during the school year, when the children's needs for consistency — regular school attendance, consistent bedtime routines, stable morning preparations, reliable after-school care — are greatest. A court assessing the best interests of the children will consider whether each parent can provide the consistent, day-to-day structure that young children require, and Ms. Fonseca is far better positioned to do so.
D. Children's Educational Continuity
Both children are enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a well-regarded private school in Sherman Oaks, California. Isabela is currently in first grade, with an annual tuition of $32,400. Mateo is in the pre-kindergarten program, with an annual tuition of $26,800. Total annual tuition for both children is $59,200.
Ridgeview Academy is located in close proximity to Ms. Fonseca's residence in Studio City (approximately a ten-minute commute) and to her office in Burbank (approximately a fifteen-minute commute). Mr. Medrano's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apt. 12, North Hollywood, California 91602 is also within a reasonable commuting distance of the school — approximately twenty minutes — but as discussed above, the logistical challenge for Mr. Medrano is not distance per se, but rather the frequency and duration of his absences from the Los Angeles area due to his work.
Maintaining the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy and ensuring continuity in their educational environment is a priority for Ms. Fonseca and a strong argument in favor of designating her residence as the children's primary home during the school year.
E. Financial Capacity
Ms. Fonseca's annual compensation of approximately $870,000 positions her as the parent with significantly greater financial capacity. She is able to provide the children with a high standard of living, including:
•  A stable, well-appointed residence in a desirable neighborhood;
•  Private school education at Ridgeview Academy;
•  Comprehensive health insurance through her employer-sponsored plan with Veridian Health Insurance Co. (under the Luminos Entertainment Group group health plan);
•  Extracurricular activities, summer programs, and enrichment opportunities; and
•  A reliable, consistent home environment supported by her financial stability.
While financial capacity alone is not determinative of custody — and the court will not simply award custody to the wealthier parent — it is a relevant factor in the best-interests analysis insofar as it relates to the children's health, safety, and welfare.
V. Client's Position — Weaknesses and Risk Factors
A candid assessment of our client's position requires acknowledgment of several weaknesses and risk factors that will likely be raised by opposing counsel or that may affect the court's analysis. It is important that we address these proactively and manage Ms. Fonseca's expectations accordingly.
A. Income Disparity and Support Obligation
The most significant counterintuitive aspect of this case from the client's perspective is the child support calculation. Under the California guideline formula, child support is driven primarily by two variables: the relative incomes of the parents and the timeshare percentage. Because Ms. Fonseca's income ($870,000) is substantially higher than Mr. Medrano's income (approximately $340,000), she will be the obligor parent — meaning she will be required to pay child support to Mr. Medrano — even if she holds the majority timeshare.
This result often surprises clients, particularly clients who are the primary custodial parent and the higher earner. The rationale under California law is that the children are entitled to benefit from both parents' financial resources and to enjoy a comparable standard of living in both households. The guideline formula is designed to equalize, to a degree, the economic conditions of the two households in which the children will reside.
Our preliminary estimate, based on a 63–65% timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor and the income figures described above, suggests a guideline child support obligation of approximately $1,200 to $1,400 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This estimate is preliminary and will be refined through the DissoMaster analysis to be prepared by Nadia Petrov and the forensic income analysis to be performed by the retained accountant. It is essential that we communicate this to Ms. Fonseca clearly and early, to avoid any misunderstanding or dissatisfaction with a negotiated or court-ordered support amount.
B. Mr. Medrano's Parental Bond
Mr. Medrano is the biological father of both Isabela and Mateo, and by all accounts he has a loving, affectionate, and emotionally engaged relationship with both children. There is no allegation of abuse, neglect, or unfitness on his part. The children love their father and enjoy spending time with him. Any suggestion that Mr. Medrano is an inadequate or uninvolved parent would be factually unsupportable and strategically counterproductive.
The court will not view Mr. Medrano's travel for work as disqualifying. Travel for employment is a common feature of modern professional life, and California courts routinely craft custody arrangements that accommodate a parent's need to travel for work. Opposing counsel at KD&S will argue — with some justification — that Mr. Medrano has been an active, hands-on father during the periods when he is in Los Angeles, and that his absences for work are temporary and do not diminish the quality or significance of his relationship with the children.
We must be careful not to overplay our hand on this issue. Our argument is not that Mr. Medrano is an unfit or uninvolved parent; rather, it is that the structure and predictability of Ms. Fonseca's life make her the more appropriate primary custodial parent during the school year, when consistency is most critical. This is a nuanced distinction that must be maintained throughout our advocacy.
C. Potential Argument Regarding Ms. Fonseca's Work Demands
Although Ms. Fonseca's work is primarily office-based and geographically stable, her role as SVP of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group is undeniably demanding. She oversees a portfolio of approximately eighteen original series, which involves long hours, evening and weekend work, and occasional travel for production oversight, network presentations, industry events, premieres, and upfront presentations. During peak periods — such as pilot season or major series launches — her work demands can be intense.
Opposing counsel will almost certainly argue that Ms. Fonseca's demanding career limits her availability to the children in a manner analogous to Mr. Medrano's travel schedule, and that her ability to be present for the children on a daily basis depends substantially on third-party caregivers, nannies, or after-school care programs. This argument, while overstated, is not entirely without merit, and we should be prepared to address it.
Our response should emphasize several points. First, Ms. Fonseca's work schedule is predictable in a way that Mr. Medrano's is not. She works from the same office every day, and while her hours may be long, she is rarely absent from the Los Angeles area for more than a day or two at a time. Second, Ms. Fonseca has structured her life to prioritize her children's daily needs — she handles morning routines, is available for after-school pick-up most days, and is present for bedtime routines. Third, while Ms. Fonseca does occasionally rely on supplemental childcare, this is typical for a working parent at her level and does not diminish her role as the primary caretaker.
We should, however, avoid over-reliance on the argument that Ms. Fonseca employs nannies or caregivers as a supporting factor. Opposing counsel could turn this against us by arguing that the children's care is being substantially delegated to third parties. Our emphasis should remain on Ms. Fonseca's direct involvement, her physical presence, and the structural advantages of her geographic stability.
D. No Presumption Favoring One Parent
California law does not presume that one parent is more suitable than the other based on gender, income level, or any other characteristic outside of the best-interests analysis. Family Code § 3040 provides that custody should be granted to either parent according to the best interests of the child, without preference based on the sex of the parent. This means that Mr. Medrano enters the custody dispute on equal legal footing with Ms. Fonseca, and he will advocate vigorously — as he is entitled to do — for as close to an equal timeshare as his work schedule permits.
If Mr. Medrano can demonstrate that his travel is concentrated in certain periods and that he is reliably available during other periods, he may argue for an alternating schedule or a timeshare that approaches 50/50 during the months when he is not on assignment. A 50/50 timeshare would not only provide him with more time with the children but would also significantly reduce or eliminate the child support he would receive from Ms. Fonseca, which creates a financial incentive for him to push for equal time.
We must be prepared for this argument and counter it with evidence that the children's need for a consistent, predictable routine during the school year is best served by a primary-residence arrangement with Ms. Fonseca, supplemented by generous parenting time for Mr. Medrano structured around his availability.
VI. Proposed Custody and Timeshare Framework
Based on the foregoing analysis, we recommend pursuing the following custody and timeshare framework in negotiations and, if necessary, in court proceedings.
A. Legal Custody
We recommend seeking joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca on educational decisions. Joint legal custody is the norm in California and reflects the court's strong preference for shared decision-making between parents. However, given that Ms. Fonseca has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's education — she researched schools, completed the enrollment applications for Ridgeview Academy, has attended all parent-teacher conferences, and has managed communications with the school administration — it is reasonable to request that she hold tie-breaking authority on educational matters in the event the parents cannot agree.
Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions is a commonly granted arrangement in cases where one parent has taken the lead on educational matters and where the parties have demonstrated an inability to agree on a mechanism for joint decision-making. It does not strip Mr. Medrano of his right to participate in educational decisions or to be consulted on all significant issues; it simply provides a mechanism for resolution in the event of an impasse.
We recommend that all other legal custody decisions — healthcare, extracurricular activities, religious instruction (if any), and other matters relating to the children's welfare — remain subject to joint decision-making without a tie-breaker, with mediation as the dispute-resolution mechanism if the parents cannot agree.
B. Physical Custody — School Year
We recommend seeking joint physical custody with Ms. Fonseca's residence designated as the children's primary residence during the school year (defined as the first day of school through the last day of school at Ridgeview Academy, typically early September through mid-June). Our target timeshare during the school year is approximately 65% Fonseca / 35% Medrano.
This target reflects the current de facto arrangement, accounts for Mr. Medrano's travel schedule, and preserves meaningful and substantial parenting time for Mr. Medrano when he is in the Los Angeles area. A 65/35 split during the school year is well within the range of typical joint physical custody arrangements in California and should not be viewed as an aggressive demand. It also reflects the reality that during periods when Mr. Medrano is traveling for work, Ms. Fonseca will have the children exclusively, which naturally increases her timeshare percentage.
The specific school-year schedule we propose to develop would include the following components:
•  Every other weekend, Friday after school through Monday morning school drop-off, with Mr. Medrano having physical custody. This provides two-night weekends on an alternating basis.
•  One midweek overnight per week with Mr. Medrano, on a designated weekday (e.g., Wednesday after school through Thursday morning school drop-off), subject to Mr. Medrano's availability and not being on an out-of-town assignment.
•  Flexibility provisions allowing Mr. Medrano to swap his midweek or weekend custody days to accommodate his work schedule, with reasonable advance notice (e.g., 72 hours for a midweek swap, seven days for a weekend swap).
•  Right of first refusal: if either parent will be away from the children for more than 24 consecutive hours during their custodial time, the other parent has the right of first refusal to care for the children before a third-party caregiver is engaged.
This schedule, when calculated over the course of a typical school year, should yield approximately 65% overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 35% overnights with Mr. Medrano, consistent with our target.
C. Physical Custody — Summer
We recommend proposing a 50/50 split during the summer break. The summer break at Ridgeview Academy is approximately ten weeks (70 days). Under this proposal, each parent would have 35 overnights during the summer. The specific schedule would involve alternating two-week blocks, with the first block going to the parent who did not have the children on the last weekend of the school year.
Offering a 50/50 summer split serves two important strategic purposes. First, it is generous to Mr. Medrano and demonstrates Ms. Fonseca's genuine commitment to co-parenting and to ensuring that the children have a strong, meaningful relationship with their father. Courts and mediators respond favorably to a parent who facilitates the other parent's relationship with the children. Second, the summer is the period when Mr. Medrano's work schedule is often less demanding (although not always), making it more feasible for him to provide consistent, hands-on custody for extended periods.
D. Holiday Rotation
We recommend proposing a standard alternating even-year/odd-year holiday schedule, as follows:
This is a standard and widely accepted holiday rotation schedule that provides predictability for both parents and the children.
E. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions
Given the central role that work-related travel plays in this dispute, we recommend proposing detailed travel and on-location work provisions that protect the children's stability while accommodating the realities of both parents' careers.
Extended Work-Related Absence. If either parent accepts work or other commitments requiring travel of more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days, custodial time for those days shall automatically transfer to the other parent. The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up custodial time, to be scheduled by mutual agreement within sixty (60) calendar days following the traveling parent's return. If the parties cannot agree on the make-up schedule, the matter shall be submitted to mediation. This provision addresses the core issue that precipitated this filing — Mr. Medrano's seven-week Vancouver absence — and ensures that extended absences result in the children being cared for by their other parent rather than by third-party caregivers.
International Travel with Children. Either parent desiring to travel internationally with either or both children shall provide the other parent with no less than thirty (30) calendar days' advance written notice, including the destination, dates of travel, accommodations, and emergency contact information. International travel with the children shall require the written consent of the other parent or, in the event consent is withheld, a court order authorizing the travel. Both parents shall cooperate in obtaining or maintaining valid passports for the children.
Domestic Travel Outside California with Children. Either parent desiring to travel outside the State of California with either or both children shall provide the other parent with no less than fourteen (14) calendar days' advance written notice, including the destination, dates of travel, accommodations, and emergency contact information.
These provisions balance each parent's right to travel with the children against the other parent's right to know where the children are and to consent to significant travel. They are consistent with standard provisions in high-asset family law custody agreements and should be viewed as reasonable by the court, opposing counsel, and any mediator.
VII. Child Support Strategy
A. Income Analysis
The child support calculation under the California guideline requires a precise determination of each parent's gross income from all sources. The parties' respective income positions are as follows:
Marguerite D. Fonseca. Ms. Fonseca's income is relatively straightforward to calculate. Her gross monthly income, inclusive of base salary, average annual bonus, and average annual RSU vesting, is approximately $72,500 per month ($870,000 ÷ 12). Her income is documented through W-2 forms, Luminos Entertainment Group compensation statements, and brokerage records reflecting RSU vesting and sales. We will prepare an Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150) reflecting her current income and expenses.
Rafael J. Medrano. Mr. Medrano's income determination is significantly more complex. As a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, his income is variable from month to month and year to year, depending on the number and scale of the projects on which he works. His income flows through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a single-member limited liability company that is treated as a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes. The LLC invoices production companies for Mr. Medrano's services and receives payment, from which it pays Mr. Medrano a salary and covers certain business expenses.
Our preliminary understanding, based on information provided by Ms. Fonseca and publicly available production credit databases, is that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is approximately $340,000 ($28,333 per month). However, this figure must be verified and may be understated if Mr. Medrano retains earnings in the LLC, pays personal expenses through the LLC, or benefits from other economic perquisites of the entity.
Forensic Accountant Engagement. We strongly recommend retaining Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, to perform a comprehensive forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's earnings and the financial operations of Medrano Visuals, LLC. Mr. Yamamoto is a certified public accountant accredited in business valuation (ABV) and certified in financial forensics (CFF). He has extensive experience in high-asset family law matters in the Los Angeles area and has been qualified as an expert witness in the Los Angeles Superior Court on numerous occasions. His proposed engagement fee for this matter is a flat fee of $14,750, which covers the review of tax returns, financial statements, bank records, and related documents, preparation of a report, and one deposition or hearing appearance.
The forensic income analysis will provide a defensible basis for the child support calculation and will be an essential tool in negotiations. We recommend that the engagement letter with Yamamoto Brace & Liu be executed and sent within the next week.
Combined Gross Monthly Income. On a preliminary basis, the combined gross monthly income of both parents is approximately $100,833 ($72,500 for Ms. Fonseca plus $28,333 for Mr. Medrano). This figure will be refined as more precise income data becomes available.
B. Guideline Calculation
Under the California guideline formula (Family Code § 4055), the child support amount for two children at the income levels described above and a 63–65% timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor will result in a support obligation payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. The exact amount is sensitive to precise income figures, allowable deductions, and the exact timeshare percentage, all of which will be inputted into the DissoMaster software program.
Nadia Petrov will prepare a detailed child support guideline analysis memorandum that includes DissoMaster runs at multiple timeshare scenarios (55/45, 60/40, 63/37, 65/35, and 70/30) using both the preliminary income estimates and revised estimates once the forensic analysis is completed. This will allow us to see how the guideline amount varies with different timeshare percentages, which is critical information for structuring our custody and support proposals. That memorandum is expected by approximately May 15, 2023.
The amount of guideline support will be moderated by Ms. Fonseca's majority timeshare. Under the formula, the more time the higher-earning parent spends with the children, the lower the support obligation, because the higher earner is directly providing for the children's needs during that custodial time. This provides a financial incentive that is aligned with our custody objective: the more custodial time we secure for Ms. Fonseca, the lower her support obligation will be.
C. Potential Deviation from Guideline
If we can negotiate a comprehensive settlement package in which Mr. Medrano agrees to bear a proportionally higher share of certain specific costs — such as extracurricular activity fees, summer camp costs, or after-school enrichment programs — we may be able to justify a stipulated deviation below guideline support under Family Code § 4057(b).
A stipulated deviation requires that: (1) both parties are represented by counsel (satisfied here); (2) the deviation is not unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances; (3) the needs of the children are adequately met by the stipulated amount; and (4) the right to support has not been bargained away in exchange for a concession on property or other non-support issues. If we can demonstrate that the total value of the support and cost-sharing package meets the children's needs, a modest deviation below guideline should be defensible.
A detailed legal analysis of the deviation strategy, including supporting case law and specific proposed cost-sharing provisions, will be prepared in a separate memorandum.
D. Education and Healthcare Costs
Tuition at Ridgeview Academy. We propose that tuition at Ridgeview Academy be shared between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes. Based on the preliminary income figures, this yields an approximately 70/30 split:
The 70/30 ratio is an approximation based on Ms. Fonseca's share of the parties' combined income ($870,000 ÷ $1,210,000 ≈ 72%). We may refine this ratio after the forensic income analysis is completed. A 70/30 split is reasonable and reflects the equitable principle that each parent should contribute to the children's educational expenses in proportion to their ability to do so.
Healthcare. Both children are currently covered under Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Veridian Health Insurance Co. (the Luminos Entertainment Group group health plan). This is a comprehensive plan with excellent coverage, and it is in the children's best interests to remain on this plan. We propose that Ms. Fonseca continue to maintain the children on her employer-sponsored plan at her expense, and that unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, vision, and therapeutic expenses be shared between the parties at the same 70/30 ratio as tuition. This arrangement ensures that the children receive high-quality healthcare coverage while requiring each parent to contribute to out-of-pocket costs proportionally.
VIII. Proposed Timeline and Action Items
The following timeline sets forth the key milestones and action items for this matter, organized by phase.
A. Immediate (Next 1–2 Weeks: April 25 – May 9, 2023)
1.  Finalize and File Request for Order (RFO) re Custody and Child Support. We will prepare and file an RFO seeking temporary orders regarding legal custody, physical custody, a parenting schedule, and child support. The target filing date is May 2, 2023. The RFO will be supported by a detailed declaration from Ms. Fonseca and an Income and Expense Declaration. The RFO will request a hearing at the earliest available date, which we anticipate will be approximately six to eight weeks from filing.
2.  Prepare and File Declaration of Marguerite D. Fonseca in Support of RFO. Devon Archer will draft the client declaration, setting forth the relevant factual background, the history of Ms. Fonseca's role as primary caretaker, the breakdown of the informal custody arrangement, and the proposed parenting plan. The declaration will be factual, measured in tone, and focused on the children's best interests — not adversarial toward Mr. Medrano. Ms. Fonseca will review and sign the declaration under penalty of perjury.
3.  Prepare and File Income and Expense Declaration (FL-150). Nadia Petrov will prepare the Income and Expense Declaration for Ms. Fonseca, reflecting her current income from all sources (base salary, bonus, RSU vesting), monthly expenses, and the children's monthly expenses. This is a mandatory filing in any proceeding involving child support.
4.  Retain Harold K. Yamamoto / Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. We will send the engagement and scope letter to Mr. Yamamoto's firm within the next five business days, retaining him to perform the forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's earnings and the Medrano Visuals, LLC loan-out entity. The proposed flat fee is $14,750, payable from the client's retainer. The engagement letter will define the scope of work, the documents to be reviewed, and the timeline for completion of the report.
5.  Child Support Guideline Analysis Memorandum. Nadia Petrov will prepare a comprehensive child support guideline analysis memorandum, including DissoMaster runs at multiple timeshare scenarios (55/45, 60/40, 63/37, 65/35, and 70/30), using the preliminary income estimates. This memorandum is expected by approximately May 15, 2023.
B. Short-Term (May–July 2023)
6.  Seek Temporary Custody Order at Hearing on RFO. At the hearing on the RFO (anticipated approximately June–July 2023), we will seek a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor during the pendency of the proceedings. A temporary order is critical to establishing the status quo, which will influence the final custody determination. We are deliberately proposing a 60/40 temporary order — slightly less than our ultimate 65/35 target — to present a reasonable request to the court and to leave room for negotiation toward the final arrangement.
7.  Meet-and-Confer with Opposing Counsel. We will initiate a meet-and-confer with Gwendolyn R. Kwan at KD&S to discuss the parties' respective custody proposals and the possibility of engaging a mediator to resolve the dispute without contested hearings. The meet-and-confer will be conducted professionally and in a spirit of good faith, consistent with our strategy of pursuing settlement wherever possible. We expect Ms. Kwan to be receptive to a mediation-oriented approach, as both clients benefit from a private resolution.
8.  Anticipate Appointment of Minor's Counsel. As discussed above, we anticipate that the court may appoint counsel for the minor children pursuant to Family Code § 3150, either on its own motion at the RFO hearing or in response to a request by one of the parties. We should welcome this appointment and cooperate fully with minor's counsel. If the court does not raise the issue, we should consider requesting it, as an independent advocate for the children is likely to align with our client's position.
9.  Stipulate to Appointment of Private Custody Evaluator. We recommend stipulating with opposing counsel to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., located in Encino, California, as the private custody evaluator. Dr. Sorensen is a highly respected forensic psychologist specializing in child custody evaluations. She has been court-appointed and privately retained in numerous high-profile family law matters in the Los Angeles Superior Court and has an excellent reputation for thoroughness, objectivity, and professionalism. Her estimated fee for a comprehensive custody evaluation involving two children and two parents is approximately $18,500, to be split equally between the parties ($9,250 per party). If opposing counsel will not stipulate to Dr. Sorensen, we will propose two to three alternative evaluators for consideration.
10.  File Stipulation and Proposed Order to Seal the Court File. As discussed in Section III.E, we recommend filing a stipulated motion to seal the court file under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. We anticipate that opposing counsel will agree to this stipulation, given both parties' interest in protecting the children's privacy and their own public profiles. We will prepare the stipulation, declaration in support, and proposed order for filing promptly after the meet-and-confer with opposing counsel.
C. Medium-Term (August–October 2023)
11.  Cooperate with Custody Evaluation Process. Once the custody evaluator is appointed and begins the evaluation process, we will prepare Ms. Fonseca thoroughly for each phase of the evaluation, including:
•  Individual parent interviews with Dr. Sorensen;
•  Home visits to Ms. Fonseca's residence;
•  Observation of parent-child interactions;
•  Psychological testing (if ordered);
•  Identification and coordination with collateral contacts (e.g., Ridgeview Academy teachers and administrators, the children's pediatrician, family friends, and other relevant individuals who can speak to Ms. Fonseca's parenting).
We will prepare a detailed memorandum for Ms. Fonseca advising her on how to present herself during the evaluation — not coaching her to be inauthentic, but ensuring that she understands the process, is comfortable with the format, and presents her best self. We will also coordinate with collateral contacts to ensure they are available and prepared to speak with the evaluator.
12.  Receive and Analyze Custody Evaluation Report. Based on Dr. Sorensen's typical timeline, we estimate that the custody evaluation report will be completed approximately twelve weeks from the date of the appointment order, targeting October 2023. Once received, we will conduct a thorough analysis of the report, including its factual findings, clinical assessments, and recommendations regarding legal custody, physical custody, and the parenting schedule. The custody evaluation report will be the centerpiece of the mediation and, if necessary, of any contested hearing.
13.  Receive and Analyze Forensic Accountant's Income Report. Mr. Yamamoto's forensic income analysis should be completed by approximately August–September 2023, depending on the availability of Mr. Medrano's financial records. If Mr. Medrano voluntarily produces his financial records in response to our discovery requests, the analysis may be completed sooner. If production is contested, it may be delayed. Once the forensic report is received, we will use the verified income figures to update the DissoMaster guideline calculations and refine our child support proposals for mediation.
D. Settlement/Mediation Phase (November 2023–January 2024)
14.  Engage a Mediator. We recommend engaging Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) of Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, located at 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017, to serve as the mediator in this matter. Judge Yee is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who served for fifteen years on the family law bench and now specializes in the mediation and arbitration of high-asset family law disputes. She is widely respected by family law practitioners in the Los Angeles area and has a strong track record of resolving complex custody and support disputes. Her daily mediation rate is approximately $6,000, to be split equally between the parties.
15.  Prepare Confidential Mediation Briefs. We will prepare comprehensive confidential mediation briefs to be submitted to Judge Yee in advance of the mediation sessions. The briefs will summarize the factual background, the parties' respective positions, the custody evaluation report (if available by this time), the forensic income analysis, the proposed parenting plan, and the child support proposals. The briefs will be persuasive but measured, designed to demonstrate the reasonableness of Ms. Fonseca's position and her commitment to a collaborative resolution.
16.  Conduct Mediation Sessions. We anticipate two to three mediation sessions to reach a comprehensive agreement. The first session would focus on custody

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts