PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is intended solely for internal use by the attorneys and staff of Calderwood & Harkness LLP working on the referenced matter. Do not distribute to the client, opposing counsel, or any third party without express authorization from a supervising partner.
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
TO: Priya Anand, Partner; Oliver Mackenzie, Partner
FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate
DATE: November 20, 2023
RE: Fonseca Custody & Parenting Plan — Post-Mediation Session 1 Status & Strategy Update
MATTER NO.: 1035-00002
CASE REFERENCE: In re Fonseca / Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
I. Executive Summary
Mediation Session 1 in the above-referenced matter took place on Friday, November 17, 2023, at the offices of Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, located at 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.), serving as the neutral mediator. The session commenced at approximately 9:30 a.m. and concluded at approximately 3:45 p.m., lasting approximately six hours inclusive of a brief lunch recess and multiple private caucuses.
The following individuals participated in the mediation session:
• Petitioner (our client): Marguerite D. Fonseca, accompanied by Devon Archer, Lead Associate, and Nadia Petrov, Associate, of Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
• Respondent: Rafael J. Medrano, accompanied by Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner (CA Bar No. 218453), and Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate (CA Bar No. 312776), of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP ("KD&S").
• Minor's Counsel: Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA Bar No. 267894), attending independently pursuant to her appointment under Family Code § 3150.
The session was conducted in a combination of joint session and private caucus formats. The parties convened in joint session for opening statements and an initial discussion of framework issues, after which the mediator conducted a series of private caucuses with each side, returning to joint session periodically to confirm areas of tentative agreement and narrow the scope of remaining disputes.
The session yielded meaningful progress on several important issues. The parties reached tentative agreement on joint legal custody, the continuation of both children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy with income-proportional cost-sharing, healthcare coverage and unreimbursed expense allocation, a holiday rotation framework based on alternating even/odd years, and mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. These areas of agreement, while still subject to reduction to a final written stipulation, represent significant forward momentum and should substantially reduce the scope of any contested hearing, should one become necessary.
However, a significant gap remains between the parties on two closely interrelated issues: the physical custody timeshare during the school year, and the child support amount. Ms. Fonseca's position, consistent with our mediation brief and supported by the custody evaluator's recommendations, seeks a school-year timeshare of approximately 65% in her favor, with an effective annualized split of approximately 63.6% Fonseca / 36.4% Medrano. Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal seeks a substantially more equal timeshare of approximately 55% Fonseca / 45% Medrano during the school year, approaching a week-on/week-off arrangement. The timeshare dispute has direct financial implications for the guideline child support calculation, which creates additional negotiating complexity. Secondary open issues include the threshold for on-location work transfer provisions, travel notice requirements, and extracurricular cost-sharing allocations.
No final agreement was reached during Session 1. The mediator, Hon. Yee (Ret.), scheduled Mediation Session 2 for December 15, 2023, at the same location. Both sides agreed to continue negotiations and to exchange updated proposals in advance of the second session.
My overall assessment is that settlement remains achievable, but will require strategic concessions on our part regarding the presentation and framing of the timeshare arrangement, as well as creative structuring of the child support deviation and extracurricular cost-sharing obligations to present Mr. Medrano with a package that addresses his economic and parental-involvement concerns without materially compromising Ms. Fonseca's position on the core timeshare issue. The detailed analysis and recommended strategy adjustments are set forth below.
II. Background and Procedural Posture
For the benefit of the partners and to ensure a comprehensive record, the following summarizes the factual background and procedural history of this matter.
Marguerite D. Fonseca and Rafael J. Medrano registered a domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State on September 12, 2015 (CA SOS File No. DP-2015-038741). The partnership was dissolved by judgment entered on November 3, 2022, by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Case No. 22STFL09847. The dissolution judgment resolved all property and debt issues between the parties but expressly reserved jurisdiction over child custody, visitation, and child support for future determination.
The parties have two minor children together:
• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, currently age six (6).
• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, currently age four (4).
Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Isabela is in the first grade, with an annual tuition of $32,400. Mateo is enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program, with an annual tuition of $26,800. Total combined annual tuition for both children is $59,200. The children have attended Ridgeview Academy since its earliest available enrollment for each child, and it is undisputed that the school provides an excellent educational environment well suited to both children's needs.
Ms. Fonseca resides at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. This has been the children's primary residence throughout and since the dissolution. Mr. Medrano resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, California 91602. Both residences are within a reasonable driving distance of Ridgeview Academy, although Ms. Fonseca's residence is meaningfully closer to the school and is situated in the neighborhood where the children have established their social routines, friendships, and extracurricular activities.
Ms. Fonseca is employed as a Senior Vice President of Post-Production at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., a major entertainment company. Her gross annual income is approximately $870,000, or approximately $72,500 per month. Her employment provides a stable, predictable schedule and employer-sponsored health insurance through Veridian Health Insurance Co. that currently covers both children.
Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who operates through Medrano Visuals, LLC, a single-member California limited liability company. His income is variable and project-dependent, with substantial fluctuations from year to year. Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, conducted a forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's freelance earnings and determined a three-year average annual income of approximately $340,000, or approximately $28,333 per month. Mr. Medrano's work frequently requires on-location travel, including domestic and international shoots that may last from several days to several weeks.
The key procedural milestones in this matter are as follows:
• May 2, 2023: Ms. Fonseca filed a Request for Order ("RFO") regarding custody and child support.
• May 30, 2023: The court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceedings.
• June 22, 2023: Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA Bar No. 267894), was appointed by the court pursuant to Family Code § 3150 to represent the interests of both minor children.
• July 14, 2023: By stipulation of the parties, the court ordered a custody evaluation to be conducted by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (CA License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. The evaluation fee of $18,500 was ordered to be split equally between the parties, at $9,250 per party. On the same date, the court entered a stipulated order sealing the court file pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., in recognition of both parties' public-facing positions in the entertainment industry and the privacy interests of the minor children.
• October 6, 2023: Dr. Sorensen delivered her completed custody evaluation report to the court, counsel for both parties, and Minor's Counsel. The contents and implications of the report are discussed in detail in Section V below.
• November 10, 2023: Our firm submitted Ms. Fonseca's mediation brief to Hon. Yee (Ret.) and served copies on KD&S and Minor's Counsel, in advance of Mediation Session 1.
• November 17, 2023: Mediation Session 1 took place, as summarized in this memorandum.
• December 15, 2023: Mediation Session 2 is scheduled.
The matter remains set for a contested hearing on the RFO in the event mediation does not result in a full resolution. The current hearing date is February 20, 2024, before the Honorable David L. Montoya, Dept. 6.
III. Summary of Areas of Agreement (Tentative)
The following issues were the subject of substantive discussion during Session 1 and reached varying degrees of tentative agreement. All areas of agreement discussed below remain subject to the execution of a final written stipulation and are conditioned upon the resolution of all outstanding issues as part of a comprehensive settlement. Neither party has formally bound itself to any individual term discussed during mediation, consistent with the mediator's standard ground rules and the confidentiality provisions of Evidence Code §§ 1115–1128.
A. Joint Legal Custody
Both parties expressed agreement that joint legal custody is appropriate and in the best interests of the children. There was no dispute on this fundamental point, and it is consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation in her custody evaluation report. This area is effectively resolved, subject only to the details of implementation.
Ms. Fonseca proposed that she hold tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, consistent with her role as the parent who has historically managed the children's schooling, communicated with teachers and school administrators, and made day-to-day decisions regarding academic matters. Mr. Medrano did not outright reject this proposal but expressed concern about the scope of any such tie-breaking authority. Specifically, through counsel, Mr. Medrano indicated that he would be willing to consider tie-breaking authority limited strictly to school enrollment decisions—i.e., the selection of the school the children attend—but objected to extending such authority to encompass decisions regarding extracurricular activities, tutoring, academic enrichment programs, or other supplementary educational decisions. Mr. Medrano's position is that these latter categories of decisions should require mutual agreement.
Minor's Counsel Brannigan indicated general support for educational tie-breaking authority resting with Ms. Fonseca. Ms. Brannigan noted, consistent with the findings in Dr. Sorensen's report, that Ms. Fonseca has been the primary manager of the children's schooling throughout the partnership and since the dissolution, and that continuity in educational decision-making serves the children's best interests. Ms. Brannigan did not express a definitive view on the precise scope of tie-breaking authority during Session 1, but her general posture was favorable to our client's position.
Our recommended approach to this issue for Session 2 is discussed in Section VII.F below.
B. Education — Ridgeview Academy Enrollment and Tuition Cost-Sharing
Both parties agreed without dispute that the children should remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy for the foreseeable future. This is a positive development, as continuity of the children's educational environment is an important factor in the overall stability analysis and supports our broader position on the timeshare.
General agreement was reached on the concept that tuition costs should be shared on a basis proportional to the parties' respective incomes. Our mediation brief proposed a 70% Fonseca / 30% Medrano split, which reflects a reasonable approximation of the income ratio based on Ms. Fonseca's gross annual income of approximately $870,000 and Mr. Medrano's imputed three-year average annual income of $340,000 (a ratio of approximately 72%/28%, rounded to 70/30 for simplicity and as a modest concession in Mr. Medrano's favor). Under this proposal, the cost allocation would be as follows:
This specific percentage split was not formally objected to by Mr. Medrano's counsel during Session 1, and no counter-proposal on the exact percentages was advanced during the session. However, KD&S indicated in caucus with the mediator (as relayed by Hon. Yee) that Mr. Medrano may seek a somewhat lower cost-sharing percentage—for example, a 75/25 split rather than 70/30—citing the inherent variability of freelance income and the argument that imputed income overstates Mr. Medrano's actual ability to pay in lower-income years. This potential objection was not pressed with any vigor during Session 1, and I anticipate that the precise tuition cost-sharing percentage will be resolved relatively easily as part of the overall financial package in Session 2, provided we demonstrate flexibility on other economic terms.
C. Healthcare. The parties reached agreement in principle that the children will remain covered under Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan, which is provided through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. and underwritten by Veridian Health Insurance Co. This arrangement reflects the current status quo and is practical given that Ms. Fonseca's employment provides comprehensive coverage at a favorable group rate, while Mr. Medrano, as a self-employed individual, does not have comparable employer-sponsored insurance available.
Discussion during Session 1 also addressed the allocation of unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses. Our proposal, consistent with the income-proportional approach applied to tuition, was a 70% Fonseca / 30% Medrano split of all unreimbursed healthcare costs for the children. No strong objection was raised by opposing counsel on this point. KD&S acknowledged in caucus that income-proportional sharing of healthcare costs is standard and reasonable, and I do not anticipate significant resistance on this issue in Session 2.
We should ensure that the final stipulation includes clear definitions of what constitutes a "covered" versus "unreimbursed" expense, a reasonable advance-notice requirement before incurring non-emergency unreimbursed costs above a specified dollar threshold (our mediation brief proposed $250 per incident), and a documentation and reimbursement procedure with a defined payment timeline.
D. Holiday Rotation Framework
Both parties agreed to an alternating even/odd year schedule for the following holidays and school breaks: Thanksgiving (including the Wednesday evening through Sunday evening of Thanksgiving week), winter break (to be divided into a first half and second half, with the allocation alternating each year), spring break, and designated individual holidays including but not limited to Independence Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Halloween, each parent's birthday, each child's birthday, and Mother's Day/Father's Day (the latter two allocated permanently to the respective parent).
This framework reflects standard practice in family law parenting plans and was not the subject of significant dispute. The specific dates, transition times, and pickup/dropoff logistics have not yet been negotiated in detail. These operational details were deferred to Session 2 or subsequent drafting of the formal parenting plan document. I do not anticipate that these details will present significant obstacles, though they will require careful drafting to avoid future ambiguity.
E. Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement
Both parties agreed to the inclusion of mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in the final stipulated agreement. Specifically, both sides agreed that:
• Neither party will make disparaging statements about the other party to the children, to third parties in the children's presence, or in any public forum, including social media, press interviews, or industry events.
• The financial terms of any custody and support agreement, as well as the contents of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to third parties except as required by law, to legal or financial advisors, or as necessary for enforcement purposes.
Both sides acknowledged during the joint session that each party is a public-facing professional in the entertainment industry—Ms. Fonseca as a senior executive at Luminos Entertainment Group, and Mr. Medrano as a prominent freelance cinematographer whose work has garnered industry recognition. Both parties recognized that the children's privacy interests are paramount and that public disclosure of custody or financial arrangements could be detrimental to the children. The existing stipulated order sealing the court file pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. (entered July 14, 2023) was acknowledged by both parties and will be referenced in the final agreement.
This area is effectively resolved in principle and will require only careful drafting in the final document.
IV. Remaining Open Issues and Areas of Disagreement
Notwithstanding the meaningful progress described above, several significant issues remain unresolved. The physical custody timeshare and child support amount are the primary areas of dispute and are closely interrelated. Secondary but important open issues include the on-location work provision threshold, travel notice requirements, extracurricular cost-sharing allocations, and the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator. Each is addressed below.
A. Physical Custody Timeshare — Primary Dispute
The physical custody timeshare during the school year is the central unresolved issue in this case and the most significant obstacle to a mediated settlement. The parties' positions are separated by a meaningful gap, and the resolution of this issue will have cascading effects on child support calculations and the overall financial structure of the agreement.
1. Our Position (Ms. Fonseca). Our mediation brief proposed joint physical custody with primary residence designated with Ms. Fonseca. The specific timeshare proposal is as follows:
• School-Year Timeshare (approximately 295 days, early September through mid-June): Approximately 65% Fonseca / 35% Medrano. Under the proposed parenting schedule, this translates to approximately 237 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and approximately 128 overnights with Mr. Medrano during the school year. Mr. Medrano's custodial time during the school year would include alternating weekends (Friday after school through Monday morning school dropoff) and one midweek overnight per week (Wednesday after school through Thursday morning school dropoff).
• Summer Schedule (10-week break, approximately 70 days): A 50/50 split, with 35 overnights for each parent, divided into alternating two-week blocks with a transition day.
• Effective Annual Totals: Approximately 232 overnights for Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights for Mr. Medrano, producing an annualized timeshare of approximately 63.6% Fonseca / 36.4% Medrano.
This position is firmly supported by Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, which recommended a school-year timeshare in the range of 60–65% in Ms. Fonseca's favor. The key factual predicates supporting our position include:
• Ms. Fonseca has been the primary caretaker of both children throughout the domestic partnership and since the dissolution. She has managed the children's daily routines, school enrollment, homework, medical appointments, and extracurricular activities.
• The children's established routines—including school, social relationships, and extracurricular activities—are centered on Ms. Fonseca's Studio City residence at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. This residence is in close proximity to Ridgeview Academy at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403.
• Ms. Fonseca's work schedule is stable and predictable, providing the children with consistency and routine.
• Mr. Medrano's variable work travel schedule as a freelance cinematographer creates stability concerns. His work regularly requires on-location travel of varying duration, which has historically resulted in interruptions to his custodial time. Dr. Sorensen's report specifically noted this concern.
2. Mr. Medrano's Counter-Proposal. Mr. Medrano's position, as presented by KD&S during Session 1, seeks joint physical custody with no parent designated as having the "primary" residence. His specific timeshare proposal is as follows:
• School-Year Timeshare: Approximately 55% Fonseca / 45% Medrano, structured as a roughly week-on/week-off schedule with minor adjustments to account for school logistics.
• Summer Schedule: 50/50 (consistent with our proposal and not a point of dispute).
• Effective Annual Totals: Approximately 200 overnights for Ms. Fonseca and 165 overnights for Mr. Medrano, producing an annualized timeshare of approximately 54.8% Fonseca / 45.2% Medrano.
The arguments advanced by KD&S in support of this counter-proposal included the following:
• Mr. Medrano has a strong and loving bond with both children, as confirmed by Dr. Sorensen's evaluation report.
• Since the dissolution, Mr. Medrano has made meaningful efforts to limit his work travel and to prioritize his time with the children. He has declined certain projects that would have required extended absences.
• Mr. Medrano's residence at 609 Moorpark Street, Apartment 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602, is within a reasonable driving distance of Ridgeview Academy and the children's extracurricular activities. While not as close as Ms. Fonseca's residence, it is not so distant as to create logistical hardship.
• A more equal timeshare reflects the children's best interests by fostering strong relationships with both parents and respects Mr. Medrano's constitutional parental rights under both the United States and California Constitutions.
• KD&S cited specific portions of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report noting the strong father-child bond and, in particular, Isabela's expressed desire during the evaluation interviews to spend more time with her father. KD&S emphasized that Isabela is now six years old and capable of articulating a meaningful preference, and that her stated wishes should be given weight.
It is worth noting that KD&S's characterization of the evaluation report is selective. While Dr. Sorensen did acknowledge the strong father-child bond and Isabela's preference, the report's ultimate recommendation was for primary residence with Ms. Fonseca and a timeshare in the 60–65% Fonseca range—not the near-equal split Mr. Medrano proposes. KD&S did not directly address the discrepancy between their proposal and the evaluator's recommendation during the joint session, though they argued in caucus (as relayed by Hon. Yee) that the evaluator's recommendation was a floor, not a ceiling, for Mr. Medrano's timeshare.
3. Minor's Counsel Position. Ms. Brannigan participated actively in the timeshare discussions during both joint sessions and a private caucus with Hon. Yee (Ret.). Based on her statements during Session 1, Ms. Brannigan's position can be summarized as follows:
• She would likely support a timeshare in the range of 60/40 to 65/35 in favor of Ms. Fonseca, which is closer to our position than to Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal.
• She expressed particular interest in creative scheduling arrangements that would maximize Mr. Medrano's midweek contact with the children—for example, additional midweek overnights or extended midweek afternoon/evening periods—as a means of fostering the father-child relationship without compromising the stability of the children's school-year routines.
• She emphasized the importance of stability and continuity for both children, with particular attention to Mateo, who at age four is at a developmental stage where consistency in routine and primary caregiving relationships is especially important.
• She expressed the view that Mr. Medrano's work travel schedule should be addressed through clear, enforceable provisions in the parenting plan (such as on-location work transfer provisions and makeup time requirements) rather than by simply reducing his share of the timeshare. In other words, she favored a parenting plan that gives Mr. Medrano meaningful time but includes structural protections to ensure that the children's routines are not disrupted when his work requires travel.
Ms. Brannigan's position is strategically favorable for our client and should be leveraged effectively in Session 2. Her emphasis on maximizing midweek contact is a concept we can work with, as discussed in the strategy recommendations in Section VII below.
B. On-Location Work Provision
Our mediation brief proposed the following provision: if either parent accepts work requiring travel exceeding fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days, custodial time during the travel period shall transfer to the other parent, with the traveling parent entitled to make-up time to be scheduled within sixty (60) days of the conclusion of the travel period.
Mr. Medrano generally accepted the concept of an on-location work transfer provision. He acknowledged that such a provision is reasonable and necessary to protect the children's routines. However, he objected to the fourteen-day threshold as too short, proposing instead a threshold of twenty-one (21) consecutive calendar days. His argument, advanced through KD&S, is that many freelance production engagements last two to three weeks, and that a fourteen-day threshold would effectively penalize him for the nature of his work by triggering custodial transfers for standard-length projects. Mr. Medrano contended that a twenty-one-day threshold would capture only truly extended absences while preserving his ability to arrange alternative childcare (such as through family members or trusted caregivers) during shorter work trips without losing custodial time.
This issue is closely tied to the timeshare dispute. Mr. Medrano's underlying concern is that a lower threshold for on-location work transfer, combined with the frequency of his work travel, would effectively reduce his actual custodial time below even the timeshare percentage reflected in the parenting plan. If Mr. Medrano's timeshare were already set at 35–36%, and his custodial time were further reduced by frequent on-location work transfers, his actual time with the children could drop to 25–30% or lower in some periods. This concern is not entirely unreasonable, and our strategy should account for it in the presentation of the overall package.
C. Travel Notice Provisions
Our mediation brief proposed the following travel notice requirements:
• International Travel (outside the continental United States): Thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other parent, plus written consent from the other parent prior to departure. In the event of disagreement, either party may seek an expedited order from the court.
• Domestic Travel (outside the State of California): Fourteen (14) days' advance written notice to the other parent.
Mr. Medrano accepted the international travel provision without objection. This is resolved.
Mr. Medrano objected to the fourteen-day domestic travel notice requirement, proposing instead a period of seven (7) days' advance written notice. His argument is that the nature of his work as a freelance cinematographer frequently requires short-notice domestic travel, and that a fourteen-day requirement is impractical and could conflict with the realities of production scheduling in the entertainment industry. KD&S argued that requiring two weeks' notice for a domestic trip—even a brief weekend trip to a nearby state—is excessive and not reflective of standard parenting plan provisions.
This issue is a secondary concern and presents an opportunity for a concession that carries relatively low risk for our client, as discussed in the strategy recommendations in Section VII.C below.
D. Child Support Amount
The child support issue is closely interrelated with the timeshare dispute and represents the second major area of disagreement.
Under the current timeshare proposal in our mediation brief (63.6% Fonseca / 36.4% Medrano, i.e., 232/133 overnights), the DissoMaster guideline calculation produces a monthly child support obligation of $1,274 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This calculation is based on the following inputs:
Our pre-mediation proposal was to set child support at $1,100 per month, representing a downward deviation of $174 from the guideline amount. The justification for this deviation, as presented in our mediation brief, is that Mr. Medrano would absorb a higher share of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (discussed in Section IV.E below), and that the combined financial arrangement—lower monthly support plus higher extracurricular contributions by Mr. Medrano—would produce a net economic result that is reasonable and consistent with the children's needs.
Mr. Medrano's position is that the guideline support of $1,274 per month should apply without deviation. Alternatively, if a deviation is to be agreed upon, it should be modest and should be offset by a more favorable (to Mr. Medrano) allocation of extracurricular costs, not a less favorable one.
It is important to note the interaction between the timeshare percentage and the child support calculation. Under Mr. Medrano's proposed timeshare of approximately 55% Fonseca / 45% Medrano (200/165 overnights), the DissoMaster guideline calculation would produce a substantially lower support figure—potentially below $800 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This creates a direct financial incentive for Mr. Medrano to push for a more equal timeshare: every percentage point of timeshare that shifts toward Mr. Medrano reduces his child support income. Conversely, every percentage point of timeshare that shifts toward Ms. Fonseca increases the guideline support obligation.
This dynamic is well understood by both sides and by the mediator. It will be a key negotiating consideration in Session 2. Our strategy must anticipate that KD&S will argue for either (a) a more equal timeshare with correspondingly lower support, or (b) a less equal timeshare with guideline support, and that Mr. Medrano will resist a package that gives him neither a favorable timeshare nor full guideline support. The recommended approach is discussed in Section VII.D below.
E. Extracurricular / Enrichment Activity Cost-Sharing
Our mediation brief proposed the following allocation of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs:
• Costs for mutually agreed extracurricular and enrichment activities shall be split 60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca, up to a cap of $1,500 per child per calendar quarter.
• Any costs exceeding the $1,500 per child per quarter cap shall require mutual written consent before being incurred.
Mr. Medrano objected strenuously to this proposal. Through KD&S, he argued that a 60/40 split with Mr. Medrano bearing the majority share is inconsistent with the income-proportional approach that has been applied to tuition and healthcare costs. Under a strict income-proportional allocation, Mr. Medrano's share would be approximately 28%, not 60%. Mr. Medrano characterized our proposal as an attempt to shift costs to him in a way that is not supported by the relative incomes of the parties, and he proposed instead either a 50/50 split or an income-proportional split of approximately 30% Medrano / 70% Fonseca.
As discussed above, the extracurricular cost-sharing proposal is a strategic component of the child support deviation package. The internal logic of our position is that Ms. Fonseca is willing to pay less than guideline support ($1,100 vs. $1,274, a savings to Ms. Fonseca of $2,088 per year), in exchange for Mr. Medrano bearing a greater share of extracurricular costs. Whether this trade-off produces a net benefit or cost to each party depends on the actual level of extracurricular spending, which is variable. The key point for negotiation purposes is that the components must be presented as a single, integrated package rather than as independent line items, each evaluated in isolation.
F. Parenting Plan Coordinator
We proposed the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator ("PPC") to serve as a resource for resolving future parenting disputes between the parties without the expense and adversarial nature of returning to court for modification or enforcement proceedings. The PPC would be authorized to make recommendations (but not binding decisions) on day-to-day parenting disputes, scheduling conflicts, and interpretation of the parenting plan, and would serve as a first step in a tiered dispute resolution process (PPC recommendation → mediation → court).
Mr. Medrano was receptive to the concept of a PPC and acknowledged that it would be beneficial for both parties and the children to have a structured alternative to litigation for resolving future disputes. However, he expressed a desire for input into the selection of the specific individual who would serve as the PPC. No specific candidate was proposed or discussed during Session 1.
We intend to propose Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, located at 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, California 90024, as the Parenting Plan Coordinator in upcoming discussions. Dr. Ingalls is a licensed marriage and family therapist with extensive experience in high-conflict custody matters and has served as a PPC in numerous cases in the Los Angeles family courts. His credentials and reputation should make him a credible and acceptable candidate to both sides. The strategy for presenting this proposal is discussed in Section VII.E below.
V. Assessment of Dr. Sorensen's Evaluation Report in Mediation Context
Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, delivered on October 6, 2023, served as a central reference point throughout the mediation session. Both parties cited the report in support of their respective positions, and the mediator, Hon. Yee (Ret.), made clear during both joint sessions and private caucuses that she regards the evaluator's findings and recommendations as carrying significant weight in framing a reasonable range for settlement negotiations.
The report is comprehensive, spanning approximately 47 pages, and reflects interviews with both parents (individually and jointly with each child), collateral contacts with teachers, pediatricians, and other professionals involved with the children, psychological testing of both parents, classroom observations at Ridgeview Academy, and home visits to both parents' residences. Dr. Sorensen's ultimate recommendation was for joint legal and physical custody, with primary residence designated with Ms. Fonseca, and a school-year timeshare in the range of 60–65% Fonseca / 35–40% Medrano.
The following aspects of the report are particularly relevant to our negotiating position:
Points Favorable to Ms. Fonseca:
• Dr. Sorensen recognized Ms. Fonseca as the primary caretaker of both children throughout the domestic partnership and since the dissolution. Ms. Fonseca was identified as the parent who manages the children's daily routines, maintains communication with school personnel, schedules and attends medical and dental appointments, and organizes extracurricular activities.
• The stability of Ms. Fonseca's residence and work schedule was noted favorably. The Studio City residence has been the children's home since birth, and the surrounding neighborhood provides continuity for the children's social relationships and activities.
• The children's established school and social routines are centered on Studio City, in close proximity to Ms. Fonseca's residence. The children's friendships, playdates, and extracurricular activities are concentrated in this area.
• Dr. Sorensen expressed concerns about Mr. Medrano's variable travel schedule and the potential for disruptions to the children's routines during periods when Mr. Medrano is on location for extended shoots. The report noted that during the evaluation period, Mr. Medrano was required to travel for work on three occasions, twice for periods exceeding ten days.
Points Favorable to Mr. Medrano:
• The report documented a strong and loving father-child bond with both children. Dr. Sorensen observed warm, engaged, and age-appropriate interactions between Mr. Medrano and the children during home visits and structured play observation sessions.
• Isabela's expressed preference for more time with her father was noted. During her individual interview, Isabela told Dr. Sorensen that she wished she could "sleep at Papa's house more," and that she missed him when she was at her mother's home for extended periods. Dr. Sorensen noted that while Isabela's preference is a factor to be considered, it must be weighed against other best-interest factors, particularly given her young age.
• Dr. Sorensen found no concerns about either parent's fitness to care for the children. Both parents were described as loving, capable, and appropriately engaged. There were no findings of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health concerns, or other risk factors.
• Mr. Medrano's demonstrated warmth and engagement during the evaluation were noted as genuine and consistent, not performative.
Mediator's Use of the Report:
During Session 1, Hon. Yee (Ret.) indicated that she gives significant weight to the custody evaluator's report when facilitating settlement discussions. She encouraged both parties to negotiate within the range recommended by Dr. Sorensen—i.e., a school-year timeshare of 60–65% in Ms. Fonseca's favor—and characterized proposals outside that range as likely to face resistance from the court at a contested hearing. Hon. Yee specifically cautioned KD&S in the joint session that Mr. Medrano's proposed 55/45 timeshare falls outside the evaluator's recommended range and would be difficult to achieve absent compelling new evidence or a change in circumstances not reflected in the report.
Assessment:
The custody evaluation report provides Ms. Fonseca with a favorable negotiating position. However, it does not support an extreme timeshare differential—the upper end of the evaluator's recommended range (65/35) is essentially the ceiling for our position, and pushing significantly beyond it would risk appearing unreasonable and potentially alienating the mediator and Minor's Counsel. Conversely, the report forecloses Mr. Medrano's best-case scenario of a near-equal timeshare. A final outcome in the range of 63–65% Fonseca is realistic and achievable if we negotiate strategically on the ancillary issues that matter to Mr. Medrano.
VI. Assessment of Minor's Counsel's Position
Ms. Brannigan participated actively throughout Session 1, attending both joint sessions and conducting a private caucus with Hon. Yee (Ret.). Her engagement was substantive and well-informed, reflecting a thorough familiarity with the custody evaluation report, the parties' respective positions as set forth in the mediation briefs, and the developmental needs of both children.
Based on her statements and demeanor during Session 1, my assessment of Ms. Brannigan's position is as follows:
• Timeshare: Ms. Brannigan appears to favor a timeshare closer to our proposal than to Mr. Medrano's. She has not committed to a specific number, but her emphasis on stability, continuity, the children's established routines in Studio City, and particularly the developmental needs of Mateo (age four) all align with a timeshare in the 60–65% Fonseca range. She has not expressed support for Mr. Medrano's proposed 55/45 split, and her private comments to the mediator (as relayed to us by Hon. Yee during caucus) suggest she views that proposal as outside the range supported by the evidence.
• Creative Scheduling: Ms. Brannigan expressed strong and genuine interest in scheduling arrangements that maximize Mr. Medrano's midweek contact with the children. This is an area where we can demonstrate flexibility and good faith without compromising on the overall timeshare percentage. Offering additional midweek overnights or extended after-school/evening periods with Mr. Medrano could win Ms. Brannigan's explicit support for the overall timeshare arrangement.
• On-Location Work and Travel Provisions: Ms. Brannigan expressed robust interest in on-location work provisions and travel notice requirements. She views these provisions as critical safeguards for the children's routines and stability, and her position supports our proposed fourteen-day threshold for on-location work transfer. She was receptive to the concept of makeup time but emphasized that the children's need for predictability should take priority over the parents' scheduling convenience.
• Strategic Value of Brannigan's Support: Ms. Brannigan's support is strategically significant for several reasons. First, Hon. Yee (Ret.) has indicated that she considers Minor's Counsel's input carefully and will weigh it heavily in evaluating the reasonableness of any proposed settlement. Second, and more importantly, if the matter were to proceed to a contested hearing before Judge Montoya, the court would likely accord significant weight to Ms. Brannigan's recommendations regarding the children's best interests. Minor's Counsel occupies a unique and influential position in custody proceedings, and alignment between our client's position and Minor's Counsel's recommendations would be a powerful advantage at any hearing.
• Maintaining the Relationship: I recommend that we maintain close and proactive communication with Ms. Brannigan in the weeks leading up to Session 2. Our letter to Ms. Brannigan dated November 8, 2023, transmitting Ms. Fonseca's proposed parenting plan for her review, was an important step in establishing transparency and trust. We should follow up with a phone call or meeting to discuss our revised proposals before the second mediation session, to the extent permitted by the mediation ground rules and professional obligations. Any revised timeshare proposal that incorporates additional midweek contact for Mr. Medrano should be shared with Ms. Brannigan in advance, as this directly addresses her stated priorities and should help solidify her alignment with our position.
VII. Recommended Strategy Adjustments for Mediation Session 2 (December 15, 2023)
Based on the outcomes of Session 1, my assessment of the parties' positions and relative leverage, the custody evaluation report, and Minor's Counsel's likely position, I recommend the following strategic adjustments for Mediation Session 2. These recommendations are presented for partner review and should be discussed with Ms. Fonseca prior to implementation.
A. Timeshare Concession Strategy
I recommend that we make a modest but visible movement from our initial timeshare position to demonstrate good faith, signal flexibility, and maintain credibility with the mediator and Minor's Counsel, while remaining firmly within the range recommended by Dr. Sorensen's evaluation report.
Proposed Revised Position:
• Annual overnight split: 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca / 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano (63.6% / 36.4%).
This represents a slight adjustment from our initial mediation brief proposal of 237/128 (which produced the same annualized percentage but allocated school-year overnights differently). The revision reflects a reallocation of approximately five (5) school-year overnights from Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. Structurally, this would most likely be implemented by adding Wednesday overnights in alternating weeks during the school year—i.e., on weeks when Mr. Medrano does not have a weekend custody period, he would have a Wednesday after-school overnight with school dropoff on Thursday morning. This approach has several strategic advantages:
1. It directly addresses Ms. Brannigan's expressed interest in maximizing Mr. Medrano's midweek contact, potentially converting her general support into an explicit endorsement of our proposed schedule.
2. It provides Mr. Medrano with a visible and psychologically meaningful gain—more frequent midweek time with the children—without substantially altering the overall timeshare percentage.
3. It keeps the annualized timeshare at 63.6% / 36.4%, which falls within the 60–65% range recommended by Dr. Sorensen, and should be acceptable to the mediator and Minor's Counsel.
4. The midweek overnight structure is logistically feasible given Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood residence and its proximity to Ridgeview Academy.
The 50/50 summer schedule (35 overnights each during the 10-week, 70-day summer break) remains unchanged, as this was not a point of dispute.
I recommend that this revised position be presented to the mediator and to KD&S as Ms. Fonseca's final offer on timeshare. Framing it as a final position—rather than an interim concession inviting further negotiation—Signals that we have reached the limit of our flexibility on this issue and shifts the negotiating pressure to Mr. Medrano to make concessions on other terms to reach a comprehensive agreement.
B. On-Location Work Provision — Hold at 14 Days
I recommend that we hold firm on the fourteen (14) consecutive calendar day threshold for the on-location work transfer provision. This provision is a critical structural safeguard for the children's stability and directly addresses one of the key concerns identified in Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report—Mr. Medrano's variable travel schedule and its potential to disrupt the children's routines.
The make-up time provision (requiring that makeup time be scheduled within 60 days of the conclusion of the travel period) provides adequate flexibility for Mr. Medrano to recapture missed custodial time without disrupting the children's routines during the travel period itself. This is a meaningful concession that addresses the fairness concern without undermining the protective purpose of the provision.
However, if we encounter strong resistance on this issue in Session 2, and if a concession on the make-up time window would help secure agreement on the timeshare or other priority issues, I recommend considering an extension of the make-up time period from sixty (60) days to ninety (90) days as a minor concession. This would give Mr. Medrano additional scheduling flexibility to arrange make-up time around his work commitments without changing the fundamental 14-day trigger for custodial transfer. This concession should be held in reserve and deployed only if needed as part of a broader deal.
C. Travel Notice — Potential Compromise
• International Travel: Hold at thirty (30) days' written notice and written consent. This is already agreed and should not be reopened.
• Domestic Travel Outside California: Consider reducing the notice requirement from fourteen (14) days to ten (10) days as a concession, if needed to secure agreement on other, higher-priority terms. A ten-day notice period represents a meaningful compromise from our initial position while still providing reasonable advance notice for planning purposes. This concession carries relatively low risk for our client, as domestic travel within the continental United States generally does not present the same safety, jurisdictional, or logistical concerns as international travel.
This concession should be presented as part of the overall package, not as a standalone offer. Its value is enhanced when bundled with firmness on the on-location work provision and the timeshare.
D. Child Support — Package Deal with Extracurricular Cost-Sharing
The child support amount and extracurricular cost-sharing allocation must be presented to Mr. Medrano and the mediator as an integrated economic package rather than as separate, independent issues. This framing is critical to overcoming Mr. Medrano's resistance to both the deviation from guideline support and the proposed extracurricular cost-sharing percentages.
I recommend presenting two alternative package options in Session 2, both designed to produce roughly equivalent net economic results for both parties:
Option A — Below-Guideline Support with Enhanced Extracurricular Cost-Sharing by Medrano:
• Child support: $1,100/mo payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano (deviation of $174 below guideline).
• Extracurricular cost-sharing: 50/50 split for mutually agreed activities up to $1,500/child/quarter (a compromise from our original 60/40 Medrano-heavy proposal).
• Costs exceeding $1,500/child/quarter require mutual written consent.
Option B — Guideline Support with Income-Proportional Extracurricular Cost-Sharing:
• Child support: $1,274/mo payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano (full guideline amount).
• Extracurricular cost-sharing: Income-proportional split of 70% Fonseca / 30% Medrano for mutually agreed activities up to $1,500/child/quarter.
• Costs exceeding $1,500/child/quarter require mutual written consent.
A net economic analysis of these two options demonstrates that they produce roughly equivalent results for both parties across a range of reasonable assumptions about extracurricular spending levels. Under Option A, Ms. Fonseca saves $2,088 per year in support payments ($174/mo × 12) but assumes a greater share of extracurricular costs. Under Option B, Ms. Fonseca pays more in monthly support but less in extracurricular costs. The breakeven point depends on the level of extracurricular spending, but at current spending levels (which our records indicate are approximately $3,500–$4,500 per child per year), the two options are approximately equivalent.
Presenting two options serves multiple strategic purposes: it demonstrates flexibility and good faith; it gives Mr. Medrano the psychological benefit of choosing between alternatives rather than responding to a single take-it-or-leave-it demand; and it frames the conversation around the integrated economic package rather than allowing line-by-line objections to individual components.
In either scenario, we should emphasize to Hon. Yee (Ret.) the legal basis for a deviation from guideline support under Family Code § 4057(b), which permits the court to depart from the guideline amount based on the special circumstances of the case, including the parties' respective abilities to contribute to the children's needs and the allocation of other child-related expenses. The reasonableness of the overall financial arrangement, viewed holistically, is the key argument.
E. Parenting Plan Coordinator
I recommend that we propose Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, California 90024, as the Parenting Plan Coordinator by name in Session 2.
To facilitate agreement, we should provide Ms. Brannigan and KD&S with Dr. Ingalls' credentials and a summary of his experience as a PPC in advance of the session. Early transparency on this point may help avoid an objection based on unfamiliarity with the proposed individual.
If Mr. Medrano objects to Dr. Ingalls as the specific individual—whether based on prior relationships, perceived bias, or simply a desire for input into the selection—we should offer the following alternative process: each side proposes two candidates, Minor's Counsel proposes one candidate, and the parties jointly select from the pool of five candidates, with the mediator available to break any tie. This process respects Mr. Medrano's legitimate interest in having input while still moving the issue toward resolution.
F. Education Tie-Breaking Authority
Based on the discussion in Session 1, I recommend that we clarify the scope of Ms. Fonseca's tie-breaking authority on educational decisions to address Mr. Medrano's concern. Specifically, we should propose that tie-breaking authority be defined as applying to:
• Selection of the school or educational institution in which the children are enrolled.
• Decisions regarding retention, grade advancement, and placement in specialized academic programs (e.g., gifted programs, learning support services).
• Major academic decisions that cannot be deferred pending resolution through the PPC or mediation process.
Tie-breaking authority would not extend to decisions regarding extracurricular activities, tutoring, enrichment programs, summer camps, or other supplementary activities, which would remain subject to mutual agreement (or, failing agreement, referral to the Parenting Plan Coordinator).
This narrow framing directly addresses the concern Mr. Medrano raised during Session 1 and should be acceptable to both parties. It preserves Ms. Fonseca's authority on the issues where her judgment has historically been primary while respecting Mr. Medrano's desire for equal input on the broader range of enrichment and activity decisions.
VIII. Budget and Timing Considerations
Clients are appropriately sensitive to the financial cost of this proceeding, and the budget trajectory is a relevant factor in evaluating the desirability of a mediated resolution versus continued litigation.
Legal Fees:
Total Calderwood & Harkness fees billed through approximately this date (November 20, 2023) are estimated at roughly $105,000–$110,000. This figure encompasses all attorney and paralegal time from engagement through preparation for and attendance at Mediation Session 1, including the RFO, temporary order proceedings, coordination with Dr. Sorensen during the custody evaluation, forensic income analysis coordination, preparation of the mediation brief, and all related communications and strategy sessions.
This amount falls within the lower portion of the $120,000–$175,000 estimated total fee range that was provided to Ms. Fonseca at the outset of the representation. The client has been informed that resolution of all remaining issues through mediation—ideally in one or two additional sessions—would keep total fees at or near the lower end of that estimate. Conversely, if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing, total fees would likely reach or exceed the upper end of the estimated range, potentially increasing further depending on the complexity of the hearing, the need for additional expert testimony, and any post-hearing motions.
Mediator Fees:
Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services charges $1,300 per hour for Hon. Yee (Ret.), with a six-hour minimum per session. Based on the anticipated duration of Sessions 2 and (if needed) 3, the total mediator fee for all sessions is estimated at approximately $13,650. Ms. Fonseca's share (one-half) is estimated at $6,825.