post-mediation-session-2-framework-memo.docx

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

post-mediation-session-2-framework-memo.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

21 / 36 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2049 Century Park East, 30th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067

MEMORANDUM

TO: Priya Anand, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: December 18, 2023

RE: Fonseca Custody & Parenting Plan — Post-Mediation Session 2 Status & Settlement Framework Analysis

MATTER NO.: 1035-00002

CASE: In re Fonseca / Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

I. PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM

The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold. First, it summarizes the progress and outcomes from Mediation Session 2, which was held on December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, located at 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017. Second, it outlines the emerging settlement framework on which both parties appear to be converging after two rounds of mediation. Third, it identifies the remaining open issues that must be resolved before or during Mediation Session 3, currently scheduled for January 19, 2024. Fourth, it recommends next steps and strategy adjustments to position our client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, for a successful conclusion of this matter.

As detailed below, Session 2 was materially more productive than Session 1 and brought the parties into substantial alignment on the core custodial and economic terms. While several implementation details remain to be resolved, the overall trajectory of these negotiations is favorable, and I believe we are well-positioned to conclude a comprehensive stipulated agreement at or shortly following Session 3.

II. MEDIATION SESSION 2 — SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

A. Attendance. The following individuals were present or participated in the December 15, 2023 mediation session:

For Petitioner (Ms. Fonseca):

• Marguerite D. Fonseca, Petitioner

• Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

• Nadia Petrov, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

For Respondent (Mr. Medrano):

• Rafael J. Medrano, Respondent

• Gwendolyn R. Kwan (CA Bar No. 218453), Partner, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505

• Benjamin T. Okafor (CA Bar No. 312776), Associate, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP

Minor's Counsel:

• Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA Bar No. 267894), 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500, Woodland Hills, California 91367. Ms. Brannigan participated by telephone for a portion of the session, as discussed further in Section V below.

Mediator:

• Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.), Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017.

B. Format and Duration

The mediation session lasted approximately five hours, commencing at 10:00 a.m. and concluding at approximately 3:00 p.m. The parties took a break for lunch from approximately 12:15 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. The session was structured as a combination of a joint session and extended caucuses. The joint session occurred at the outset and lasted approximately forty-five minutes, during which each side presented brief opening statements and the mediator framed the agenda for the day, focusing on the timeshare and child support issues that had been identified during Session 1 as the principal areas of disagreement.

Following the joint session, Hon. Yee separated the parties into their respective caucus rooms and conducted multiple shuttle rounds between them. In total, the mediator conducted approximately six separate caucus visits to each side. The shuttle rounds focused progressively on narrowing the timeshare gap, addressing the child support calculation and proposed deviations, finalizing the tuition cost-sharing arrangement, and resolving the extracurricular cost allocation as a linked package with the child support deviation. Ms. Brannigan joined by telephone during the initial joint session and participated in one brief caucus with the mediator at approximately 11:15 a.m., after which she was excused from the session.

C. Tone and Dynamic

The tone and dynamic of Session 2 were notably more productive and constructive than those of Session 1, which was held on November 17, 2023. Both parties appeared to come to the session with a greater willingness to negotiate on core terms, and there were no significant emotional or interpersonal flare-ups of the type that characterized portions of Session 1. In particular, the following observations regarding the session dynamic are noteworthy:

First, Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, explicitly acknowledged the practical difficulties of her client's on-location work schedule and its impact on his ability to maintain a higher timeshare during the school year. This represented a significant shift from Session 1, where Mr. Medrano had been more resistant to accepting any schedule that resulted in fewer than approximately 45% of overnights. Ms. Kwan's acknowledgment appeared to be driven, at least in part, by the strength of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen's custody evaluation report (delivered October 6, 2023), which recommended primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca and noted that Mr. Medrano's episodic work schedule, while not a negative factor in itself, did create practical challenges for maintaining a consistent school-year routine.

Second, Ms. Brannigan conveyed the children's expressed preference for stability and continuity in the school-year routine. She noted that her conversations with Isabela, in particular, reflected a desire to maintain her current daily routine during the school week, including her established morning routine with Ms. Fonseca, her after-school activities at Ridgeview Academy, and her evening study routine. Ms. Brannigan indicated that these preferences were consistent with Dr. Sorensen's findings and recommendations regarding both children's need for a stable, predictable school-year environment.

Third, the mediator was particularly effective at reframing the extracurricular cost allocation issue as a creative solution to the child support deviation impasse, which had been a sticking point during the final hour of Session 1. By linking the two issues together, Hon. Yee was able to generate a package deal that gave each side a concession it valued, ultimately unlocking agreement on both the child support figure and the cost-sharing arrangement.

Overall, the session dynamic suggests that both parties are motivated to reach a settlement and avoid a contested hearing. Mr. Medrano, in particular, appeared to recognize that a contested hearing on custody would likely result in an outcome at or below the terms now being offered, given Dr. Sorensen's report and the anticipated testimony regarding his work schedule.

III. EMERGING SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK — KEY TERMS

The following sections describe the emerging settlement framework that has taken shape over the course of Mediation Sessions 1 and 2. For each term, I note whether the item was agreed in Session 1, Session 2, or both, and identify any caveats or open issues that remain.

A. Legal Custody

Legal custody was agreed in principle at Session 1 and confirmed at Session 2. The parties have agreed to joint legal custody, meaning that both parents will share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (DOB February 11, 2017) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (DOB August 29, 2019).

With respect to tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, the parties have agreed that such authority shall be awarded to Ms. Fonseca. Mr. Medrano initially resisted this point at Session 1, arguing that educational decisions should require mutual agreement and, failing agreement, should be resolved through mediation. However, Mr. Medrano has now conceded this point at Session 2, acknowledging that Ms. Fonseca has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy (located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403) and that she has historically taken the lead on all academic matters, including selection of tutors, parent-teacher conference attendance, and curriculum-related decisions. Ms. Kwan indicated during the session that her client's concession on this point was driven by a practical recognition that Ms. Fonseca's greater involvement in the children's educational lives made her the logical choice for tie-breaking authority, and that the concession should not be interpreted as any diminution of Mr. Medrano's interest in or commitment to the children's education.

Both parents retain equal input and must consult in good faith on all major decisions, including but not limited to medical treatment, selection of extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing. The tie-breaking authority applies only to educational decisions, narrowly defined to include enrollment, school selection, retention, advancement, and placement in special programs. All other categories of major decisions remain subject to the mutual consultation and good-faith agreement requirement.

B. Physical Custody and Timeshare

1. School-Year Timeshare. The parties have reached agreement on a physical custody framework providing for joint physical custody with primary residence with Ms. Fonseca at her current address: 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Mr. Medrano resides at 905 Tujunga Avenue, Apartment 210, North Hollywood, California 91601, which is approximately 3.2 miles from Ms. Fonseca's residence and approximately 4.8 miles from Ridgeview Academy. The proximity of the two residences facilitates the midweek overnight exchange contemplated by the schedule.

After extended negotiation in Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel accepted a regular school-year schedule that results in approximately 232 overnights per year with Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights per year with Mr. Medrano. This equates to an approximate timeshare of 63.6% with Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% with Mr. Medrano (calculated as 232 ÷ 365 ≈ 63.6% and 133 ÷ 365 ≈ 36.4%). The overnight counts incorporate both the regular school-year schedule and the summer and holiday schedules described below.

Under the regular school-year schedule, Mr. Medrano's custodial time includes the following:

(a) Every other weekend, from Friday after school (or 3:30 p.m. on non-school days) through Monday morning school drop-off (or 8:00 a.m. on non-school days). This three-night weekend block (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights) occurs approximately 26 times per year, yielding approximately 78 overnights.

(b) One midweek overnight each week, on Wednesday. Mr. Medrano picks the children up from school (or at 3:30 p.m.) on Wednesday and returns them to school on Thursday morning (or drops off at Ms. Fonseca's residence at 8:00 a.m. on non-school days). This yields approximately 52 overnights per year during the school year (excluding weeks that fall entirely within Mr. Medrano's summer block or holidays).

The balance of the school-year overnights are with Ms. Fonseca.

It is worth noting the significant movement that occurred between Sessions 1 and 2 on this issue. At Session 1, Mr. Medrano had initially proposed a 55/45 split (approximately 201 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 164 overnights with Mr. Medrano), which would have included two midweek overnights and alternating extended weekends. Ms. Fonseca had proposed approximately 65/35 (approximately 237 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 128 overnights with Mr. Medrano). The parties have now converged on the 63.6/36.4 split, which is slightly more favorable to Mr. Medrano than our client's opening position but well within the range we recommended. This outcome is also consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation of primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca during the school year, with generous and regular contact with Mr. Medrano.

2. Summer Schedule. The summer schedule was agreed in principle during Session 1 and reconfirmed at Session 2 without material modification. During the ten-week summer break (approximately 70 days, based on the Ridgeview Academy academic calendar), custodial time is split equally, with each parent receiving 35 overnights. The parties will alternate first choice of summer weeks on an annual rotating basis, with Ms. Fonseca receiving first choice in even-numbered years and Mr. Medrano receiving first choice in odd-numbered years. Each parent's summer time may be taken in blocks of not less than one week and not more than three consecutive weeks, and each parent shall designate their preferred weeks no later than April 1 of each year.

3. Holiday Rotation. The parties have agreed in principle to an alternating annual holiday schedule on an even-year/odd-year basis. The holidays subject to this rotation include Thanksgiving, winter break (to be split into two halves), spring break, and each parent's designated personal holidays (including children's birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and certain cultural holidays). The following framework has been agreed:

• Thanksgiving: The parent with Thanksgiving in a given year has the children from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving (after school or 3:30 p.m.) through the Sunday after Thanksgiving at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Fonseca has Thanksgiving in even years; Mr. Medrano in odd years.

• Winter Break: To be divided into two halves, with each parent receiving one half in alternating years. The precise division point (whether the break is split at December 25 or December 26) remains an open issue for Session 3.

• Spring Break: The parent with spring break in a given year has the children for the entirety of the break. Ms. Fonseca has spring break in odd years; Mr. Medrano in even years.

• Mother's Day / Father's Day: Each parent has the children on their respective holiday, regardless of the regular schedule.

• Personal and Cultural Holidays: To be designated in the final agreement.

Specific holiday definitions, transition times, and pick-up/drop-off locations remain to be finalized, as discussed in Section IV.A below.

C. Child Support

1. Income Figures. Both sides have now accepted the income figures to be used for purposes of the guideline child support calculation. This represents a significant development, as Mr. Medrano's income had been a contested issue through much of the pre-mediation discovery process. The agreed income figures are as follows:

Ms. Fonseca's Gross Monthly Income: $72,500. This figure is based on Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation of $870,000, which comprises: (i) a base salary of $485,000; (ii) an average annual bonus of $210,000 (based on the three-year average of her performance-based bonus from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc.); and (iii) annual restricted stock unit ("RSU") vesting of $175,000 (based on the current vesting schedule and fair market value of her outstanding RSU grants). These figures are consistent with Ms. Fonseca's Income and Expense Declaration (Form FL-150), filed May 2, 2023, and with the Luminos Entertainment Group compensation records produced in discovery.

Mr. Medrano's Imputed Gross Monthly Income: $28,333. This figure is based on an imputed annual income of $340,000, as determined by the forensic income analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, located at 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90071. The $340,000 figure represents the three-year average of Mr. Medrano's annual income from all sources, including his earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC (his single-member LLC through which he provides cinematography and direction of photography services), as well as his income from various commercial and episodic television projects. The three-year averaging approach was employed to smooth out the significant year-to-year variability in Mr. Medrano's earnings, which ranged from approximately $215,000 in 2021 to approximately $485,000 in 2022 to approximately $320,000 in the twelve months preceding the analysis.

It should be noted that Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, had initially contested the imputation of income at the $340,000 level. During the pre-mediation phase and again at Session 1, KD&S argued that Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC were episodic and unpredictable, and that a lower figure — in the range of $260,000 to $280,000 — should be used, based on what they characterized as a more conservative projection of future earnings. However, after reviewing the comprehensive Yamamoto Brace & Liu analysis, which included a detailed examination of Mr. Medrano's tax returns, bank statements, 1099 records, and industry compensation data, KD&S appears to have accepted the $340,000 figure for settlement purposes. Ms. Kwan did, however, expressly reserve her client's right to argue a different income figure if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing, and we should be prepared for this contingency.

Combined Gross Monthly Income: $100,833. Based on the foregoing, the combined gross monthly income for purposes of the guideline calculation is $100,833 ($72,500 + $28,333).

2. Guideline Calculation. Based on the agreed timeshare of approximately 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano, and the income figures described above, the DissoMaster guideline calculation yields a child support obligation of $1,274 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This calculation accounts for two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (DOB February 11, 2017, age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (DOB August 29, 2019, age 4). The guideline amount reflects the algebraic formula set forth in California Family Code § 4055, which takes into account each parent's net disposable income, the percentage of time each parent has primary physical responsibility for the children, and the total net disposable income of both parents.

Despite Ms. Fonseca's substantially higher income, the guideline amount is moderated by her majority timeshare. Because Ms. Fonseca has the children for approximately 63.6% of overnights, she is already bearing a disproportionate share of the direct costs of raising the children during her custodial time, which reduces the guideline transfer payment.

3. Proposed Deviation. During Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel agreed to accept a deviation below the guideline child support amount in exchange for a more favorable allocation of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs. This trade-off was the product of the creative packaging approach facilitated by Hon. Yee, as noted in Section II.C above.

The agreed child support figure is $1,100 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This represents a deviation of $174 per month below the DissoMaster guideline amount ($1,274 − $1,100 = $174), or approximately 13.7% below guideline.

The legal basis for the deviation is California Family Code § 4057(b), which authorizes the court to depart from the guideline amount upon a finding that application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case. The deviation is justified here by Mr. Medrano's agreement to bear a disproportionately higher share of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca, as described in Section III.D.2 below). Because Mr. Medrano's 60% share of extracurricular costs exceeds his proportionate share of the combined income (approximately 28%), the effect of the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement is to offset the $174 per month reduction in child support and, in many months, to result in a net transfer from Mr. Medrano to the children's extracurricular activities that exceeds the support reduction.

This analysis is consistent with the memorandum prepared by Nadia Petrov, dated November 1, 2023, analyzing the legal basis for deviation from guideline child support in this case. Ms. Petrov's memorandum concluded that a deviation in the range of $100 to $200 per month below guideline is supportable under Section 4057(b) and likely to be approved by the court, provided that the deviation is accompanied by adequate findings regarding the offsetting benefits to the children. We are confident that the $174 per month deviation falls squarely within this range and is well-supported on this record.

D. Education and Extracurricular Costs

1. Tuition — Ridgeview Academy. The parties have agreed that both children will continue their enrollment at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. The current annual tuition for each child is as follows:

• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (first grade): Annual tuition of $32,400.

• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (pre-kindergarten): Annual tuition of $26,800.

• Total annual tuition for both children: $59,200.

The agreed cost allocation for tuition is 70% Ms. Fonseca and 30% Mr. Medrano. Under this allocation:

• Ms. Fonseca's annual share: $41,440 (comprising $22,680 for Isabela and $18,760 for Mateo).

• Mr. Medrano's annual share: $17,760 (comprising $9,720 for Isabela and $8,040 for Mateo).

This allocation was agreed at Session 2 without significant dispute. The 70/30 split is consistent with the parties' respective income proportions, as Ms. Fonseca earns approximately 72% of the combined gross income ($72,500 ÷ $100,833 ≈ 71.9%). Both sides viewed this allocation as fair and proportionate.

It should be noted that Ridgeview Academy tuition is subject to annual increases, which have historically been in the range of 3% to 5% per year. The final agreement should include a provision addressing the allocation of tuition increases, and we recommend that the 70/30 allocation be applied to any increases unless the parties agree otherwise.

2. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activities. The parties have agreed in principle that costs for the children's extracurricular and enrichment activities will be split 60% Mr. Medrano and 40% Ms. Fonseca, subject to a cap of $1,500 per child per quarter. This allocation is intentionally disproportionate to Mr. Medrano's income share and serves as the quid pro quo for the $174 per month deviation below guideline child support, as described in Section III.C.3 above.

Currently, Isabela participates in gymnastics, violin instruction through the school's Suzuki program, and a Saturday art class, with combined quarterly costs of approximately $1,850. Mateo participates in a swimming program and a music enrichment class, with combined quarterly costs of approximately $980. Isabela's current costs exceed the proposed $1,500 per child per quarter cap, which means that the mechanism for resolving costs above the cap will be immediately relevant.

One open issue remains regarding the extracurricular cost allocation: any extracurricular cost exceeding $1,500 per child per quarter requires the mutual written consent of both parents. The mechanism for resolving disputes over costs above this threshold has not yet been agreed. This issue is discussed further in Section IV.B below.

E. Healthcare. The parties have agreed that the children will remain on Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The carrier is Veridian Health Insurance Co., and the plan provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for both children. Ms. Fonseca currently pays an employee premium contribution for dependent coverage, which is deducted from her paycheck on a pre-tax basis.

Unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses will be split 70% Ms. Fonseca and 30% Mr. Medrano, consistent with the tuition cost-sharing allocation and the parties' approximate income proportions. This term was confirmed at Session 2 without material dispute. The final agreement should define "unreimbursed" expenses to include deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance amounts, and the cost of any treatment not covered by the insurance plan, including but not limited to orthodontia, therapy, and prescription medications.

F. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions

The travel and on-location work provisions were a significant focus of both mediation sessions, given Mr. Medrano's profession as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography in the film and television industry. The following terms have been agreed in principle:

International Travel: Neither parent may take the children outside the continental United States without providing a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent and obtaining the other parent's written consent (or, in the absence of consent, a court order). The notice shall include the travel dates, destination, itinerary, accommodations, and emergency contact information. This term has been agreed in principle.

Domestic Travel Outside California: Either parent may travel with the children within the continental United States upon providing a minimum of 14 days' written notice to the other parent, including the travel dates, destination, and contact information. Unlike international travel, domestic travel does not require the other parent's consent, only notice. This term has been agreed in principle.

On-Location Work Provision: This provision addresses the situation that was, in many respects, the precipitating event for this custody dispute. If either parent accepts work requiring travel of more than 14 consecutive calendar days, that parent's custodial time for those days transfers to the other parent, with make-up time to be scheduled within 60 days of the traveling parent's return.

This provision was of particular importance given Mr. Medrano's work history. As both parties are aware, the immediate trigger for Ms. Fonseca's petition was Mr. Medrano's acceptance of a seven-week on-location shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia, in January through March 2023, during which Ms. Fonseca had sole care of both children. At the time, the parties had an informal 50/50 custody arrangement, and Mr. Medrano's extended absence — with less than two weeks' notice to Ms. Fonseca — was the catalyst for the formal custody proceedings.

During negotiations, Mr. Medrano's counsel had originally pushed for a 21-consecutive-day threshold before the on-location work provision would be triggered, arguing that shorter on-location assignments of two to three weeks are a routine part of Mr. Medrano's work and should not result in a forfeiture of custodial time. However, after further negotiation at Session 2, KD&S accepted the 14-consecutive-day threshold proposed by our side. The 14-day threshold is consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation that extended parental absences of more than two weeks during the school year can be disruptive to the children's routine and should trigger a transfer of custodial time.

The on-location work provision is expressly reciprocal and applies equally to Ms. Fonseca. While Ms. Fonseca's current position at Luminos Entertainment Group does not typically require extended travel, her role as SVP of Production may occasionally involve location visits or industry events, and the reciprocal nature of the provision ensures fairness.

One open issue remains regarding the specific mechanism for scheduling make-up time and the role of the parenting coordinator in resolving make-up time disputes. This is discussed in Section IV.D below.

G. Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement

The parties have agreed in principle to a mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, reflecting the sensitive nature of the proceedings and both parties' public-facing roles in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Production at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., and Mr. Medrano is a well-known cinematographer whose credits include several high-profile feature films and limited series. Both parties have a strong interest in preventing public disclosure of the details of their custody dispute and the financial terms of any settlement.

Under the proposed clause, neither party will disclose the financial terms of the agreement, the contents of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, or any information exchanged during the mediation process to any third party, except as follows: (i) to the party's legal counsel; (ii) to the party's tax advisors and financial planners; (iii) as required by court order or subpoena; or (iv) as otherwise required by law. This provision is consistent with, and complementary to, the stipulation and order sealing the court file, which was filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., on July 14, 2023.

The precise scope of the non-disparagement and confidentiality clause — including provisions regarding social media conduct, exceptions for communications with immediate family members, and the definition of "disparagement" — remains to be negotiated and drafted. This open issue is discussed in Section IV.F below.

H. Parenting Plan Coordinator

The parties have agreed in principle to the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist with the implementation of the custody and parenting plan agreement and the resolution of day-to-day scheduling disputes. The use of a parenting plan coordinator is consistent with standard practice in high-conflict or complex custody matters in Los Angeles County and is strongly recommended by both the mediator and minor's counsel.

Ms. Fonseca has proposed 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. Dr. Ingalls is a licensed marriage and family therapist with over twenty years of experience in family law matters, including extensive work as a parenting plan coordinator and child custody mediator. He has been appointed as a parenting coordinator in numerous Los Angeles County family law cases and is well-regarded by the bench.

Mr. Medrano's counsel indicated at Session 2 that they would review Dr. Ingalls's qualifications, fee schedule, and availability and respond with their position prior to Session 3. Ms. Kwan did not express any preliminary objection to Dr. Ingalls but stated that her client wanted to conduct his own due diligence before agreeing to the appointment.

Several open issues remain regarding the parenting coordinator, including the coordinator's scope of authority (advisory only versus limited binding authority on scheduling disputes), the cost-sharing arrangement for the coordinator's fees, and the duration of the appointment. These issues are addressed in Section IV.C below.

I. Annual Review / Modification Provision

The parties have agreed in principle that child support will be subject to review on the anniversary of the order or upon a material change in circumstances, whichever occurs first. For purposes of this provision, a "material change in circumstances" is defined as a change in either parent's gross income exceeding 15% (whether an increase or decrease) or a change in the actual timeshare exceeding 10% (whether by agreement, court order, or de facto practice).

This provision reflects the reality that both parties' incomes may fluctuate significantly over time — Ms. Fonseca's compensation is partially tied to bonus and RSU performance, and Mr. Medrano's income is inherently variable due to the project-based nature of his work. The 15% income threshold and 10% timeshare threshold are designed to balance the need for stability and predictability with the need to ensure that the support obligation remains fair as circumstances evolve.

The specific language of the modification provision, including the notice and process requirements for initiating a review, will be finalized in the written agreement.

IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3

While the core custodial and economic framework is now substantially agreed, the following open issues remain to be resolved before or during Mediation Session 3, currently scheduled for January 19, 2024. Each issue is discussed below, together with our recommended position and strategy.

A. Holiday Schedule Details

The holiday rotation has been agreed in principle on an even-year/odd-year basis, but several important implementation details remain outstanding:

Transition Times and Locations. Specific pick-up and drop-off times and locations for each holiday period need to be agreed. During the school year, transitions generally occur at Ridgeview Academy (pick-up and drop-off at school). However, holidays that begin or end on non-school days require designated transition times and locations. We propose that all non-school-day transitions occur at Ms. Fonseca's residence at 10:00 a.m. unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. KD&S may propose the midpoint between the residences or a neutral location; we should be flexible on this point.

Winter Break Division. The parties need to agree on the precise point at which the winter break is divided into two halves. The key question is whether the break is split at December 25 or December 26 — that is, whether the parent with the "first half" of winter break has the children through Christmas Day or only through Christmas Eve. This is an emotionally charged issue for many families, and we should approach it with sensitivity. Our recommended position is that the break be split at 2:00 p.m. on December 25, so that the parent with the first half has the children on Christmas morning and the parent with the second half has the children for Christmas evening and the remainder of the break.

Children's Birthdays. The allocation of the children's birthdays has not yet been addressed. Isabela's birthday is February 11, and Mateo's birthday is August 29. We propose that each child spend their birthday with the parent who has custody on that date under the regular schedule, but that the non-custodial parent have the right to a two-hour birthday visit or video call on the child's birthday. Alternatively, if both parties prefer, the children's birthdays could be added to the holiday rotation on an alternating-year basis.

B. Extracurricular Cost Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The parties need to agree on a process for resolving disagreements over extracurricular and enrichment activity costs that exceed the $1,500 per child per quarter cap. Three options were discussed at Session 2:

(a) Advisory Recommendation by Parenting Coordinator. The parenting coordinator reviews the proposed activity and associated cost and provides a non-binding recommendation to the parents. If the parents remain unable to agree after receiving the recommendation, either parent may seek relief from the court.

(b) Binding Decision by Parenting Coordinator. The parenting coordinator has limited binding authority to decide whether the proposed activity and associated cost is reasonable and in the children's best interests. The coordinator's decision is final, subject only to judicial review for abuse of discretion.

KD&S has expressed a preference for option (a), the advisory-only approach, arguing that binding authority on financial decisions should rest with the court. We propose option (b) for efficiency reasons. Given the relatively low dollar amounts involved and the frequency with which extracurricular decisions arise, requiring a court filing each time the parents disagree on a cost above $1,500 per quarter is impractical and expensive. A parenting coordinator with limited binding authority on this specific issue can resolve disputes quickly and at modest cost. We should be prepared to negotiate on this point, but we believe option (b) is the stronger position and should be our starting point at Session 3.

C. Parenting Plan Coordinator — Identity and Scope

Three subsidiary issues remain regarding the parenting plan coordinator:

Identity. Mr. Medrano's counsel is to confirm acceptance of Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls or propose alternative candidates. If KD&S proposes alternatives, we should be prepared to evaluate them and, if necessary, agree to a joint interview process. We believe Dr. Ingalls is well-qualified and that his appointment would serve the children's interests, but we should not be rigid on this point if KD&S has a reasonable alternative.

Scope of Authority. The parties need to define whether the coordinator's authority is advisory only or includes limited binding authority on scheduling disputes. As noted above in connection with the extracurricular cost issue, we prefer limited binding authority for scheduling disputes, which would encompass make-up time scheduling (Section IV.D below), minor modifications to the regular schedule, and resolution of conflicts between the regular schedule and holidays or special events. KD&S may resist binding authority; a compromise position would be to grant binding authority only on scheduling matters (not financial or educational decisions) and only for disputes involving less than five overnights per quarter.

Cost-Sharing. The coordinator's fees need to be allocated between the parties. We propose a 70/30 split (Fonseca/Medrano), consistent with the income-based allocation used for tuition and healthcare. If KD&S pushes for a 50/50 split, we can negotiate within the 50/50 to 70/30 range.

D. Make-Up Time Scheduling Protocol

The on-location work provision (Section III.F) contemplates that make-up time will be scheduled within 60 days of the traveling parent's return. However, the parties have not yet agreed on a specific protocol for how make-up time is scheduled. We propose the following three-step protocol:

(1) The traveling parent provides a written schedule request to the other parent within seven (7) calendar days of returning from the on-location assignment, proposing specific dates for make-up time.

(2) The other parent responds in writing within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the request, either accepting the proposed dates, proposing alternative dates, or identifying scheduling conflicts.

(3) If the parents are unable to reach agreement within 14 calendar days of the initial request, the matter is referred to the parenting coordinator for resolution pursuant to the coordinator's authority as defined in the agreement.

This protocol is designed to ensure prompt scheduling of make-up time while providing a clear escalation path in the event of disagreement. We believe KD&S is likely to find this protocol reasonable, as it protects Mr. Medrano's ability to recover missed time while also ensuring that make-up time does not unduly disrupt the children's regular routine.

E. Right of First Refusal

Ms. Fonseca proposed a right of first refusal for childcare when a parent is unavailable for more than eight (8) consecutive hours during that parent's custodial time. Under this provision, before engaging a babysitter, nanny, or other third-party childcare provider for a period exceeding eight hours, the custodial parent must first offer the other parent the opportunity to care for the children during that period.

Mr. Medrano's counsel indicated general agreement with the concept of a right of first refusal but wants to discuss two specific aspects of the provision: (i) the threshold duration (eight hours versus a longer threshold, such as twelve hours or overnight), and (ii) the notice mechanism (how much advance notice must be given to the other parent, and whether the other parent's failure to respond within a specified period constitutes a waiver of the right).

Our position is that the eight-hour threshold is appropriate and in line with common practice in Los Angeles County family law cases. We can be flexible on the notice mechanism and propose a two-hour advance notice requirement, with a one-hour response window. If the other parent does not respond within one hour, the custodial parent may engage third-party childcare without waiving the other parent's right of first refusal for future instances.

F. Final Language — Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality Clause

Both sides agree in principle on the need for a non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, but the precise scope of the clause has not been negotiated. The following specific issues need to be addressed in drafting:

• Social Media Provisions: Whether the clause expressly prohibits or restricts social media posts that reference the other parent, the custody proceedings, or the terms of the agreement. Given both parties' public profiles, this is a sensitive issue.

• Exceptions for Family Members: Whether either parent is permitted to discuss the terms of the agreement with immediate family members (e.g., parents, siblings) who may be providing childcare or emotional support.

• Definition of Disparagement: Whether the clause defines "disparagement" broadly (any negative statement) or narrowly (only false or misleading statements), and whether the definition includes statements by implication.

• Remedies for Breach: Whether the clause includes liquidated damages, injunctive relief, or both as remedies for breach.

We recommend proposing broad but reasonable language that prohibits both parties from making any public statement (including on social media) that is negative, derogatory, or disparaging about the other parent or that discloses the terms of the agreement, with exceptions for communications with legal counsel, tax and financial advisors, therapists, and immediate family members who agree to be bound by the same confidentiality obligations.

V. MINOR'S COUNSEL INPUT

Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., participated by telephone during the joint session and a brief caucus session on December 15, 2023. Her participation, while limited in duration, provided valuable input on the emerging framework. The following summarizes her key observations and requests:

Ms. Brannigan expressed general support for the emerging settlement framework. She noted that the 232/133 overnight split is consistent with Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation recommendations regarding stability for both children, particularly Isabela, who is now in first grade at Ridgeview Academy and benefits significantly from a consistent school-week routine. Ms. Brannigan also observed that the midweek Wednesday overnight with Mr. Medrano is a positive feature of the proposed schedule, as it ensures that the children maintain regular and meaningful contact with their father during the school week without disrupting the overall stability of their weekday routine.

Ms. Brannigan indicated that she will provide a written statement of her position on the final proposed settlement terms once the remaining open issues identified in Section IV are resolved. She expects to complete this statement in advance of Session 3 and will circulate it to both parties' counsel. Her written statement will address whether she supports the proposed terms and will be filed with the court as part of the stipulation package.

In addition, Ms. Brannigan made a specific request regarding the children's mental health. She asked that any final agreement include specific provisions requiring both parents to cooperate with any mental health professional working with the children, should therapy or counseling become necessary in the future. Specifically, she requested the following:

(a) A provision requiring both parents to consent to and facilitate individual therapy or counseling for either child if recommended by the children's pediatrician, school counselor, or the parenting plan coordinator.

(b) A provision requiring both parents to participate in joint or individual sessions with any therapist working with the children, if the therapist recommends such participation.

(c) A provision prohibiting either parent from unilaterally terminating a child's therapy without the other parent's written consent or a court order.

These requests are reasonable and consistent with best practices in custody agreements involving young children. We recommend incorporating provisions addressing each of Ms. Brannigan's requests into the final agreement and discussing the specific language with KD&S at or before Session 3.

VI. FINANCIAL SUMMARY — SUPPORT AND COST-SHARING OVERVIEW

The following table summarizes the key financial terms of the emerging settlement framework:

Summary of Ms. Fonseca's Annual Financial Obligations:

• Child support: $13,200 per year

• Tuition (Ridgeview Academy): $41,440 per year

• Extracurricular activities (estimated, based on current activity levels and 40% share): approximately $4,500 to $5,200 per year

• Health insurance premiums (dependent coverage): approximately $3,600 per year (estimated)

• Unreimbursed healthcare expenses (70% share): variable, estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 per year based on historical averages

Estimated total annual cost to Ms. Fonseca: Approximately $64,740 to $67,440, exclusive of the direct costs of maintaining the primary household and providing for the children during her custodial time.

A complete net annual cost analysis, incorporating all categories of expense and accounting for tax implications, is to be calculated by Nadia Petrov and included in the final settlement terms memorandum for Ms. Fonseca's review prior to Session 3.

VII. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

A. Preparation for Session 3

Mediation Session 3 is currently scheduled for January 19, 2024, at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. In preparation for the session, we recommend the following:

First, we should prepare a focused mediation brief addressing each of the open issues identified in Section IV above, with specific proposed language for each provision. The brief should present our positions clearly while signaling flexibility on the issues where we have room to negotiate (e.g., the parenting coordinator's identity and the right of first refusal threshold). The brief should be completed by January 12, 2024, to allow time for Ms. Fonseca's review before the session.

Second, we should circulate a written proposal to KD&S via email formalizing the terms agreed at Session 2, including the 232/133 overnight split, the $1,100 per month child support figure, and the extracurricular cost allocation. This written proposal will serve as the baseline for Session 3 negotiations and will reduce the risk of backtracking on previously agreed terms. The target date for circulating this proposal is on or about December 22, 2023, before the holiday break. Nadia Petrov should prepare the first draft for my review by December 20, 2023.

B. Drafting. To maximize efficiency and take advantage of the momentum generated by Session 2, we recommend beginning to draft the following documents in parallel with Session 3 preparation:

(1) Stipulated Custody and Parenting Plan Agreement — the master agreement setting forth all custodial terms, including legal custody, physical custody, timeshare schedule, holiday rotation, travel provisions, on-location work provisions, right of first refusal, parenting coordinator appointment, non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, therapy/counseling provisions, and modification provisions.

(2) Child Support Agreement — the stipulated child support order, incorporating the $1,100 per month figure, the deviation findings, and the annual review provision.

(3) Exhibit A: Holiday and Vacation Schedule — a detailed schedule setting forth the specific dates, times, and transition logistics for each holiday, vacation period, and special occasion.

(4) Exhibit B: Right of First Refusal and Travel Notice Protocol — a standalone exhibit setting forth the ROFR provisions and the notice requirements for domestic and international travel.

(5) Exhibit C: Extracurricular and Healthcare Cost-Sharing Protocol — a standalone exhibit setting forth the cost-sharing formulas, the quarterly cap, the dispute resolution mechanism, and the reimbursement procedures.

If Session 3 results in full agreement on all remaining open issues, having execution-ready documents prepared in advance will allow us to circulate final drafts within days of the session, minimizing the risk that the agreement unravels during a protracted drafting process. I recommend assigning initial drafting to Nadia Petrov, with my review on all documents. Drafting should commence during the first week of January 2024, with a target completion date of January 15, 2024, for first drafts.

C. Communication with Client

We should schedule a telephone call with Ms. Fonseca during the week of December 18, 2023, to debrief on Session 2 outcomes and prepare her for Session 3. Specifically, the call should cover the following:

• A summary of the terms agreed at Session 2 and the remaining open issues.

• Confirmation of her acceptance of the $1,100 per month child support figure and the 60/40 extracurricular cost split. Ms. Fonseca expressed comfort with this framework during Session 2, but we should confirm her position in writing (via follow-up email after the call) to ensure that we have clear authorization to proceed on these terms.

• Discussion of her preferences regarding the open issues (holiday schedule details, children's birthday allocation, parenting coordinator selection, right of first refusal threshold, and non-disparagement clause scope).

• Preparation for the dynamic of Session 3, including the possibility that KD&S may seek to reopen one or more previously agreed terms as leverage on the remaining open issues.

D. Coordination with Minor's Counsel

We should follow up with Tessa Brannigan, Esq., regarding two items. First, we should request her written position statement on the emerging settlement framework and confirm that she anticipates completing it in advance of Session 3. Second, we should discuss the therapy and counseling provisions she raised during Session 2 and share proposed language for her review. A brief telephone call during the first week of January 2024 should be sufficient to address both items.

E. Budget Update

Total fees billed to Ms. Fonseca through December 2023 are tracking within the estimated range of $120,000 to $175,000 that was provided at engagement. As of the date of this memorandum, our estimate of total fees billed through November 30, 2023, is approximately $118,500, with an estimated additional $8,000 to $10,000 for December 2023 work (including Session 2 attendance, this memorandum, and related activities), bringing the estimated year-to-date total to approximately $126,500 to $128,500.

With anticipated drafting of the agreement and exhibits, preparation for Session 3, Session 3 attendance, post-session revisions, and finalization of the stipulated agreement for filing, we estimate that total fees at the conclusion of this matter will be approximately $140,000 to $150,000, plus costs (including the mediator's fees, Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation fees, and the Yamamoto Brace & Liu forensic income analysis). This estimate assumes that Session 3 is successful in resolving all remaining open issues and that no contested hearing is required. If the matter does not settle at Session 3, the fee estimate would need to be revised upward to account for additional mediation sessions or hearing preparation.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Mediation Session 2 yielded substantial and meaningful progress toward a comprehensive resolution of this custody and child support matter. The core economic and custodial framework is now largely agreed, including joint legal custody with educational tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca, a 63.6/36.4 timeshare, child support of $1,100 per month (below guideline), tuition cost-sharing at 70/30, and an extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement that balances the support deviation. The remaining open issues, while important, are primarily implementation and process details that should be resolvable at Session 3 with adequate preparation.

The overall trajectory of these negotiations is positive. Both parties appear genuinely motivated to reach a settlement, and the mediator, Hon. Yee, has been effective at facilitating creative solutions and maintaining forward momentum. Minor's counsel supports the emerging framework, which aligns with the custody evaluation recommendations.

If Session 3 is successful, we anticipate executing the stipulated agreement in late January 2024 and filing for court approval shortly thereafter. Given the parties' stipulation and the alignment with Dr. Sorensen's recommendations, we expect that court approval will be routine and that the matter can be concluded by early to mid-February 2024.

Finally, I recommend a brief discussion with Oliver Mackenzie regarding the overall status of this matter. Mr. Mackenzie's involvement to date has been supervisory, and no additional partner-level engagement is anticipated unless unexpected complications arise at Session 3 or thereafter. However, given the total fees approaching the engagement estimate and the proximity of a resolution, a brief status update is prudent.

I am available to discuss this memorandum and the recommended next steps at your earliest convenience.

Distribution: Priya Anand only (and Oliver Mackenzie upon Anand's direction)

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Category	Total Amount	Fonseca Share	Medrano Share
Child Support (monthly)	$1,100/mo	Pays $1,100/mo	Receives $1,100/mo
Child Support (annual)	$13,200/yr	Pays $13,200/yr	Receives $13,200/yr
Guideline Deviation	$174/mo below guideline	—	—
Tuition — Ridgeview Academy (annual)	$59,200/yr	$41,440/yr (70%)	$17,760/yr (30%)
Extracurriculars (per child per quarter, capped)	Up to $1,500/child/qtr	40%	60%
Healthcare — Insurance	On Fonseca's plan	Premium cost borne by Fonseca	N/A
Healthcare — Unreimbursed expenses	Varies	70%	30%

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared in anticipation of litigation and for the purpose of providing legal advice. Do not copy, distribute, or disclose this document or its contents to any person other than the named recipient without the prior written authorization of Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2049 Century Park East, 30th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067
MEMORANDUM
TO: Priya Anand, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
FROM: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: December 18, 2023
RE: Fonseca Custody & Parenting Plan — Post-Mediation Session 2 Status & Settlement Framework Analysis
MATTER NO.: 1035-00002
CASE: In re Fonseca / Medrano, Case No. 22STFL09847, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
I. PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is fourfold. First, it summarizes the progress and outcomes from Mediation Session 2, which was held on December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, located at 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017. Second, it outlines the emerging settlement framework on which both parties appear to be converging after two rounds of mediation. Third, it identifies the remaining open issues that must be resolved before or during Mediation Session 3, currently scheduled for January 19, 2024. Fourth, it recommends next steps and strategy adjustments to position our client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, for a successful conclusion of this matter.
As detailed below, Session 2 was materially more productive than Session 1 and brought the parties into substantial alignment on the core custodial and economic terms. While several implementation details remain to be resolved, the overall trajectory of these negotiations is favorable, and I believe we are well-positioned to conclude a comprehensive stipulated agreement at or shortly following Session 3.
II. MEDIATION SESSION 2 — SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
A. Attendance. The following individuals were present or participated in the December 15, 2023 mediation session:
For Petitioner (Ms. Fonseca):
• Marguerite D. Fonseca, Petitioner
• Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
• Nadia Petrov, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
For Respondent (Mr. Medrano):
• Rafael J. Medrano, Respondent
• Gwendolyn R. Kwan (CA Bar No. 218453), Partner, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505
• Benjamin T. Okafor (CA Bar No. 312776), Associate, Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP
Minor's Counsel:
• Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA Bar No. 267894), 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500, Woodland Hills, California 91367. Ms. Brannigan participated by telephone for a portion of the session, as discussed further in Section V below.
Mediator:
• Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.), Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services, 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90017.
B. Format and Duration
The mediation session lasted approximately five hours, commencing at 10:00 a.m. and concluding at approximately 3:00 p.m. The parties took a break for lunch from approximately 12:15 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. The session was structured as a combination of a joint session and extended caucuses. The joint session occurred at the outset and lasted approximately forty-five minutes, during which each side presented brief opening statements and the mediator framed the agenda for the day, focusing on the timeshare and child support issues that had been identified during Session 1 as the principal areas of disagreement.
Following the joint session, Hon. Yee separated the parties into their respective caucus rooms and conducted multiple shuttle rounds between them. In total, the mediator conducted approximately six separate caucus visits to each side. The shuttle rounds focused progressively on narrowing the timeshare gap, addressing the child support calculation and proposed deviations, finalizing the tuition cost-sharing arrangement, and resolving the extracurricular cost allocation as a linked package with the child support deviation. Ms. Brannigan joined by telephone during the initial joint session and participated in one brief caucus with the mediator at approximately 11:15 a.m., after which she was excused from the session.
C. Tone and Dynamic
The tone and dynamic of Session 2 were notably more productive and constructive than those of Session 1, which was held on November 17, 2023. Both parties appeared to come to the session with a greater willingness to negotiate on core terms, and there were no significant emotional or interpersonal flare-ups of the type that characterized portions of Session 1. In particular, the following observations regarding the session dynamic are noteworthy:
First, Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, explicitly acknowledged the practical difficulties of her client's on-location work schedule and its impact on his ability to maintain a higher timeshare during the school year. This represented a significant shift from Session 1, where Mr. Medrano had been more resistant to accepting any schedule that resulted in fewer than approximately 45% of overnights. Ms. Kwan's acknowledgment appeared to be driven, at least in part, by the strength of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen's custody evaluation report (delivered October 6, 2023), which recommended primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca and noted that Mr. Medrano's episodic work schedule, while not a negative factor in itself, did create practical challenges for maintaining a consistent school-year routine.
Second, Ms. Brannigan conveyed the children's expressed preference for stability and continuity in the school-year routine. She noted that her conversations with Isabela, in particular, reflected a desire to maintain her current daily routine during the school week, including her established morning routine with Ms. Fonseca, her after-school activities at Ridgeview Academy, and her evening study routine. Ms. Brannigan indicated that these preferences were consistent with Dr. Sorensen's findings and recommendations regarding both children's need for a stable, predictable school-year environment.
Third, the mediator was particularly effective at reframing the extracurricular cost allocation issue as a creative solution to the child support deviation impasse, which had been a sticking point during the final hour of Session 1. By linking the two issues together, Hon. Yee was able to generate a package deal that gave each side a concession it valued, ultimately unlocking agreement on both the child support figure and the cost-sharing arrangement.
Overall, the session dynamic suggests that both parties are motivated to reach a settlement and avoid a contested hearing. Mr. Medrano, in particular, appeared to recognize that a contested hearing on custody would likely result in an outcome at or below the terms now being offered, given Dr. Sorensen's report and the anticipated testimony regarding his work schedule.
III. EMERGING SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK — KEY TERMS
The following sections describe the emerging settlement framework that has taken shape over the course of Mediation Sessions 1 and 2. For each term, I note whether the item was agreed in Session 1, Session 2, or both, and identify any caveats or open issues that remain.
A. Legal Custody
Legal custody was agreed in principle at Session 1 and confirmed at Session 2. The parties have agreed to joint legal custody, meaning that both parents will share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (DOB February 11, 2017) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (DOB August 29, 2019).
With respect to tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, the parties have agreed that such authority shall be awarded to Ms. Fonseca. Mr. Medrano initially resisted this point at Session 1, arguing that educational decisions should require mutual agreement and, failing agreement, should be resolved through mediation. However, Mr. Medrano has now conceded this point at Session 2, acknowledging that Ms. Fonseca has been the primary decision-maker regarding the children's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy (located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403) and that she has historically taken the lead on all academic matters, including selection of tutors, parent-teacher conference attendance, and curriculum-related decisions. Ms. Kwan indicated during the session that her client's concession on this point was driven by a practical recognition that Ms. Fonseca's greater involvement in the children's educational lives made her the logical choice for tie-breaking authority, and that the concession should not be interpreted as any diminution of Mr. Medrano's interest in or commitment to the children's education.
Both parents retain equal input and must consult in good faith on all major decisions, including but not limited to medical treatment, selection of extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing. The tie-breaking authority applies only to educational decisions, narrowly defined to include enrollment, school selection, retention, advancement, and placement in special programs. All other categories of major decisions remain subject to the mutual consultation and good-faith agreement requirement.
B. Physical Custody and Timeshare
1. School-Year Timeshare. The parties have reached agreement on a physical custody framework providing for joint physical custody with primary residence with Ms. Fonseca at her current address: 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. Mr. Medrano resides at 905 Tujunga Avenue, Apartment 210, North Hollywood, California 91601, which is approximately 3.2 miles from Ms. Fonseca's residence and approximately 4.8 miles from Ridgeview Academy. The proximity of the two residences facilitates the midweek overnight exchange contemplated by the schedule.
After extended negotiation in Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel accepted a regular school-year schedule that results in approximately 232 overnights per year with Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights per year with Mr. Medrano. This equates to an approximate timeshare of 63.6% with Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% with Mr. Medrano (calculated as 232 ÷ 365 ≈ 63.6% and 133 ÷ 365 ≈ 36.4%). The overnight counts incorporate both the regular school-year schedule and the summer and holiday schedules described below.
Under the regular school-year schedule, Mr. Medrano's custodial time includes the following:
(a) Every other weekend, from Friday after school (or 3:30 p.m. on non-school days) through Monday morning school drop-off (or 8:00 a.m. on non-school days). This three-night weekend block (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights) occurs approximately 26 times per year, yielding approximately 78 overnights.
(b) One midweek overnight each week, on Wednesday. Mr. Medrano picks the children up from school (or at 3:30 p.m.) on Wednesday and returns them to school on Thursday morning (or drops off at Ms. Fonseca's residence at 8:00 a.m. on non-school days). This yields approximately 52 overnights per year during the school year (excluding weeks that fall entirely within Mr. Medrano's summer block or holidays).
(c) The remaining overnights attributable to Mr. Medrano are derived from his share of the holiday and summer schedules.
The balance of the school-year overnights are with Ms. Fonseca.
It is worth noting the significant movement that occurred between Sessions 1 and 2 on this issue. At Session 1, Mr. Medrano had initially proposed a 55/45 split (approximately 201 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 164 overnights with Mr. Medrano), which would have included two midweek overnights and alternating extended weekends. Ms. Fonseca had proposed approximately 65/35 (approximately 237 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 128 overnights with Mr. Medrano). The parties have now converged on the 63.6/36.4 split, which is slightly more favorable to Mr. Medrano than our client's opening position but well within the range we recommended. This outcome is also consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation of primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca during the school year, with generous and regular contact with Mr. Medrano.
2. Summer Schedule. The summer schedule was agreed in principle during Session 1 and reconfirmed at Session 2 without material modification. During the ten-week summer break (approximately 70 days, based on the Ridgeview Academy academic calendar), custodial time is split equally, with each parent receiving 35 overnights. The parties will alternate first choice of summer weeks on an annual rotating basis, with Ms. Fonseca receiving first choice in even-numbered years and Mr. Medrano receiving first choice in odd-numbered years. Each parent's summer time may be taken in blocks of not less than one week and not more than three consecutive weeks, and each parent shall designate their preferred weeks no later than April 1 of each year.
3. Holiday Rotation. The parties have agreed in principle to an alternating annual holiday schedule on an even-year/odd-year basis. The holidays subject to this rotation include Thanksgiving, winter break (to be split into two halves), spring break, and each parent's designated personal holidays (including children's birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and certain cultural holidays). The following framework has been agreed:
• Thanksgiving: The parent with Thanksgiving in a given year has the children from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving (after school or 3:30 p.m.) through the Sunday after Thanksgiving at 6:00 p.m. Ms. Fonseca has Thanksgiving in even years; Mr. Medrano in odd years.
• Winter Break: To be divided into two halves, with each parent receiving one half in alternating years. The precise division point (whether the break is split at December 25 or December 26) remains an open issue for Session 3.
• Spring Break: The parent with spring break in a given year has the children for the entirety of the break. Ms. Fonseca has spring break in odd years; Mr. Medrano in even years.
• Mother's Day / Father's Day: Each parent has the children on their respective holiday, regardless of the regular schedule.
• Personal and Cultural Holidays: To be designated in the final agreement.
Specific holiday definitions, transition times, and pick-up/drop-off locations remain to be finalized, as discussed in Section IV.A below.
C. Child Support
1. Income Figures. Both sides have now accepted the income figures to be used for purposes of the guideline child support calculation. This represents a significant development, as Mr. Medrano's income had been a contested issue through much of the pre-mediation discovery process. The agreed income figures are as follows:
Ms. Fonseca's Gross Monthly Income: $72,500. This figure is based on Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation of $870,000, which comprises: (i) a base salary of $485,000; (ii) an average annual bonus of $210,000 (based on the three-year average of her performance-based bonus from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc.); and (iii) annual restricted stock unit ("RSU") vesting of $175,000 (based on the current vesting schedule and fair market value of her outstanding RSU grants). These figures are consistent with Ms. Fonseca's Income and Expense Declaration (Form FL-150), filed May 2, 2023, and with the Luminos Entertainment Group compensation records produced in discovery.
Mr. Medrano's Imputed Gross Monthly Income: $28,333. This figure is based on an imputed annual income of $340,000, as determined by the forensic income analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, located at 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90071. The $340,000 figure represents the three-year average of Mr. Medrano's annual income from all sources, including his earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC (his single-member LLC through which he provides cinematography and direction of photography services), as well as his income from various commercial and episodic television projects. The three-year averaging approach was employed to smooth out the significant year-to-year variability in Mr. Medrano's earnings, which ranged from approximately $215,000 in 2021 to approximately $485,000 in 2022 to approximately $320,000 in the twelve months preceding the analysis.
It should be noted that Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, had initially contested the imputation of income at the $340,000 level. During the pre-mediation phase and again at Session 1, KD&S argued that Mr. Medrano's earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC were episodic and unpredictable, and that a lower figure — in the range of $260,000 to $280,000 — should be used, based on what they characterized as a more conservative projection of future earnings. However, after reviewing the comprehensive Yamamoto Brace & Liu analysis, which included a detailed examination of Mr. Medrano's tax returns, bank statements, 1099 records, and industry compensation data, KD&S appears to have accepted the $340,000 figure for settlement purposes. Ms. Kwan did, however, expressly reserve her client's right to argue a different income figure if the matter proceeds to a contested hearing, and we should be prepared for this contingency.
Combined Gross Monthly Income: $100,833. Based on the foregoing, the combined gross monthly income for purposes of the guideline calculation is $100,833 ($72,500 + $28,333).
2. Guideline Calculation. Based on the agreed timeshare of approximately 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano, and the income figures described above, the DissoMaster guideline calculation yields a child support obligation of $1,274 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This calculation accounts for two minor children: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (DOB February 11, 2017, age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (DOB August 29, 2019, age 4). The guideline amount reflects the algebraic formula set forth in California Family Code § 4055, which takes into account each parent's net disposable income, the percentage of time each parent has primary physical responsibility for the children, and the total net disposable income of both parents.
Despite Ms. Fonseca's substantially higher income, the guideline amount is moderated by her majority timeshare. Because Ms. Fonseca has the children for approximately 63.6% of overnights, she is already bearing a disproportionate share of the direct costs of raising the children during her custodial time, which reduces the guideline transfer payment.
3. Proposed Deviation. During Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel agreed to accept a deviation below the guideline child support amount in exchange for a more favorable allocation of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs. This trade-off was the product of the creative packaging approach facilitated by Hon. Yee, as noted in Section II.C above.
The agreed child support figure is $1,100 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This represents a deviation of $174 per month below the DissoMaster guideline amount ($1,274 − $1,100 = $174), or approximately 13.7% below guideline.
The legal basis for the deviation is California Family Code § 4057(b), which authorizes the court to depart from the guideline amount upon a finding that application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case. The deviation is justified here by Mr. Medrano's agreement to bear a disproportionately higher share of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca, as described in Section III.D.2 below). Because Mr. Medrano's 60% share of extracurricular costs exceeds his proportionate share of the combined income (approximately 28%), the effect of the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement is to offset the $174 per month reduction in child support and, in many months, to result in a net transfer from Mr. Medrano to the children's extracurricular activities that exceeds the support reduction.
This analysis is consistent with the memorandum prepared by Nadia Petrov, dated November 1, 2023, analyzing the legal basis for deviation from guideline child support in this case. Ms. Petrov's memorandum concluded that a deviation in the range of $100 to $200 per month below guideline is supportable under Section 4057(b) and likely to be approved by the court, provided that the deviation is accompanied by adequate findings regarding the offsetting benefits to the children. We are confident that the $174 per month deviation falls squarely within this range and is well-supported on this record.
D. Education and Extracurricular Costs
1. Tuition — Ridgeview Academy. The parties have agreed that both children will continue their enrollment at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. The current annual tuition for each child is as follows:
• Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (first grade): Annual tuition of $32,400.
• Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (pre-kindergarten): Annual tuition of $26,800.
• Total annual tuition for both children: $59,200.
The agreed cost allocation for tuition is 70% Ms. Fonseca and 30% Mr. Medrano. Under this allocation:
• Ms. Fonseca's annual share: $41,440 (comprising $22,680 for Isabela and $18,760 for Mateo).
• Mr. Medrano's annual share: $17,760 (comprising $9,720 for Isabela and $8,040 for Mateo).
This allocation was agreed at Session 2 without significant dispute. The 70/30 split is consistent with the parties' respective income proportions, as Ms. Fonseca earns approximately 72% of the combined gross income ($72,500 ÷ $100,833 ≈ 71.9%). Both sides viewed this allocation as fair and proportionate.
It should be noted that Ridgeview Academy tuition is subject to annual increases, which have historically been in the range of 3% to 5% per year. The final agreement should include a provision addressing the allocation of tuition increases, and we recommend that the 70/30 allocation be applied to any increases unless the parties agree otherwise.
2. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activities. The parties have agreed in principle that costs for the children's extracurricular and enrichment activities will be split 60% Mr. Medrano and 40% Ms. Fonseca, subject to a cap of $1,500 per child per quarter. This allocation is intentionally disproportionate to Mr. Medrano's income share and serves as the quid pro quo for the $174 per month deviation below guideline child support, as described in Section III.C.3 above.
Currently, Isabela participates in gymnastics, violin instruction through the school's Suzuki program, and a Saturday art class, with combined quarterly costs of approximately $1,850. Mateo participates in a swimming program and a music enrichment class, with combined quarterly costs of approximately $980. Isabela's current costs exceed the proposed $1,500 per child per quarter cap, which means that the mechanism for resolving costs above the cap will be immediately relevant.
One open issue remains regarding the extracurricular cost allocation: any extracurricular cost exceeding $1,500 per child per quarter requires the mutual written consent of both parents. The mechanism for resolving disputes over costs above this threshold has not yet been agreed. This issue is discussed further in Section IV.B below.
E. Healthcare. The parties have agreed that the children will remain on Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The carrier is Veridian Health Insurance Co., and the plan provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for both children. Ms. Fonseca currently pays an employee premium contribution for dependent coverage, which is deducted from her paycheck on a pre-tax basis.
Unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses will be split 70% Ms. Fonseca and 30% Mr. Medrano, consistent with the tuition cost-sharing allocation and the parties' approximate income proportions. This term was confirmed at Session 2 without material dispute. The final agreement should define "unreimbursed" expenses to include deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance amounts, and the cost of any treatment not covered by the insurance plan, including but not limited to orthodontia, therapy, and prescription medications.
F. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions
The travel and on-location work provisions were a significant focus of both mediation sessions, given Mr. Medrano's profession as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography in the film and television industry. The following terms have been agreed in principle:
International Travel: Neither parent may take the children outside the continental United States without providing a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent and obtaining the other parent's written consent (or, in the absence of consent, a court order). The notice shall include the travel dates, destination, itinerary, accommodations, and emergency contact information. This term has been agreed in principle.
Domestic Travel Outside California: Either parent may travel with the children within the continental United States upon providing a minimum of 14 days' written notice to the other parent, including the travel dates, destination, and contact information. Unlike international travel, domestic travel does not require the other parent's consent, only notice. This term has been agreed in principle.
On-Location Work Provision: This provision addresses the situation that was, in many respects, the precipitating event for this custody dispute. If either parent accepts work requiring travel of more than 14 consecutive calendar days, that parent's custodial time for those days transfers to the other parent, with make-up time to be scheduled within 60 days of the traveling parent's return.
This provision was of particular importance given Mr. Medrano's work history. As both parties are aware, the immediate trigger for Ms. Fonseca's petition was Mr. Medrano's acceptance of a seven-week on-location shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia, in January through March 2023, during which Ms. Fonseca had sole care of both children. At the time, the parties had an informal 50/50 custody arrangement, and Mr. Medrano's extended absence — with less than two weeks' notice to Ms. Fonseca — was the catalyst for the formal custody proceedings.
During negotiations, Mr. Medrano's counsel had originally pushed for a 21-consecutive-day threshold before the on-location work provision would be triggered, arguing that shorter on-location assignments of two to three weeks are a routine part of Mr. Medrano's work and should not result in a forfeiture of custodial time. However, after further negotiation at Session 2, KD&S accepted the 14-consecutive-day threshold proposed by our side. The 14-day threshold is consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation that extended parental absences of more than two weeks during the school year can be disruptive to the children's routine and should trigger a transfer of custodial time.
The on-location work provision is expressly reciprocal and applies equally to Ms. Fonseca. While Ms. Fonseca's current position at Luminos Entertainment Group does not typically require extended travel, her role as SVP of Production may occasionally involve location visits or industry events, and the reciprocal nature of the provision ensures fairness.
One open issue remains regarding the specific mechanism for scheduling make-up time and the role of the parenting coordinator in resolving make-up time disputes. This is discussed in Section IV.D below.
G. Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement
The parties have agreed in principle to a mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, reflecting the sensitive nature of the proceedings and both parties' public-facing roles in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Production at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., and Mr. Medrano is a well-known cinematographer whose credits include several high-profile feature films and limited series. Both parties have a strong interest in preventing public disclosure of the details of their custody dispute and the financial terms of any settlement.
Under the proposed clause, neither party will disclose the financial terms of the agreement, the contents of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, or any information exchanged during the mediation process to any third party, except as follows: (i) to the party's legal counsel; (ii) to the party's tax advisors and financial planners; (iii) as required by court order or subpoena; or (iv) as otherwise required by law. This provision is consistent with, and complementary to, the stipulation and order sealing the court file, which was filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., on July 14, 2023.
The precise scope of the non-disparagement and confidentiality clause — including provisions regarding social media conduct, exceptions for communications with immediate family members, and the definition of "disparagement" — remains to be negotiated and drafted. This open issue is discussed in Section IV.F below.
H. Parenting Plan Coordinator
The parties have agreed in principle to the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist with the implementation of the custody and parenting plan agreement and the resolution of day-to-day scheduling disputes. The use of a parenting plan coordinator is consistent with standard practice in high-conflict or complex custody matters in Los Angeles County and is strongly recommended by both the mediator and minor's counsel.
Ms. Fonseca has proposed 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. Dr. Ingalls is a licensed marriage and family therapist with over twenty years of experience in family law matters, including extensive work as a parenting plan coordinator and child custody mediator. He has been appointed as a parenting coordinator in numerous Los Angeles County family law cases and is well-regarded by the bench.
Mr. Medrano's counsel indicated at Session 2 that they would review Dr. Ingalls's qualifications, fee schedule, and availability and respond with their position prior to Session 3. Ms. Kwan did not express any preliminary objection to Dr. Ingalls but stated that her client wanted to conduct his own due diligence before agreeing to the appointment.
Several open issues remain regarding the parenting coordinator, including the coordinator's scope of authority (advisory only versus limited binding authority on scheduling disputes), the cost-sharing arrangement for the coordinator's fees, and the duration of the appointment. These issues are addressed in Section IV.C below.
I. Annual Review / Modification Provision
The parties have agreed in principle that child support will be subject to review on the anniversary of the order or upon a material change in circumstances, whichever occurs first. For purposes of this provision, a "material change in circumstances" is defined as a change in either parent's gross income exceeding 15% (whether an increase or decrease) or a change in the actual timeshare exceeding 10% (whether by agreement, court order, or de facto practice).
This provision reflects the reality that both parties' incomes may fluctuate significantly over time — Ms. Fonseca's compensation is partially tied to bonus and RSU performance, and Mr. Medrano's income is inherently variable due to the project-based nature of his work. The 15% income threshold and 10% timeshare threshold are designed to balance the need for stability and predictability with the need to ensure that the support obligation remains fair as circumstances evolve.
The specific language of the modification provision, including the notice and process requirements for initiating a review, will be finalized in the written agreement.
IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3
While the core custodial and economic framework is now substantially agreed, the following open issues remain to be resolved before or during Mediation Session 3, currently scheduled for January 19, 2024. Each issue is discussed below, together with our recommended position and strategy.
A. Holiday Schedule Details
The holiday rotation has been agreed in principle on an even-year/odd-year basis, but several important implementation details remain outstanding:
Transition Times and Locations. Specific pick-up and drop-off times and locations for each holiday period need to be agreed. During the school year, transitions generally occur at Ridgeview Academy (pick-up and drop-off at school). However, holidays that begin or end on non-school days require designated transition times and locations. We propose that all non-school-day transitions occur at Ms. Fonseca's residence at 10:00 a.m. unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. KD&S may propose the midpoint between the residences or a neutral location; we should be flexible on this point.
Winter Break Division. The parties need to agree on the precise point at which the winter break is divided into two halves. The key question is whether the break is split at December 25 or December 26 — that is, whether the parent with the "first half" of winter break has the children through Christmas Day or only through Christmas Eve. This is an emotionally charged issue for many families, and we should approach it with sensitivity. Our recommended position is that the break be split at 2:00 p.m. on December 25, so that the parent with the first half has the children on Christmas morning and the parent with the second half has the children for Christmas evening and the remainder of the break.
Children's Birthdays. The allocation of the children's birthdays has not yet been addressed. Isabela's birthday is February 11, and Mateo's birthday is August 29. We propose that each child spend their birthday with the parent who has custody on that date under the regular schedule, but that the non-custodial parent have the right to a two-hour birthday visit or video call on the child's birthday. Alternatively, if both parties prefer, the children's birthdays could be added to the holiday rotation on an alternating-year basis.
B. Extracurricular Cost Dispute Resolution Mechanism
The parties need to agree on a process for resolving disagreements over extracurricular and enrichment activity costs that exceed the $1,500 per child per quarter cap. Three options were discussed at Session 2:
(a) Advisory Recommendation by Parenting Coordinator. The parenting coordinator reviews the proposed activity and associated cost and provides a non-binding recommendation to the parents. If the parents remain unable to agree after receiving the recommendation, either parent may seek relief from the court.
(b) Binding Decision by Parenting Coordinator. The parenting coordinator has limited binding authority to decide whether the proposed activity and associated cost is reasonable and in the children's best interests. The coordinator's decision is final, subject only to judicial review for abuse of discretion.
(c) Referral to Mediation. The dispute is referred to mediation with Hon. Yee or another agreed mediator.
KD&S has expressed a preference for option (a), the advisory-only approach, arguing that binding authority on financial decisions should rest with the court. We propose option (b) for efficiency reasons. Given the relatively low dollar amounts involved and the frequency with which extracurricular decisions arise, requiring a court filing each time the parents disagree on a cost above $1,500 per quarter is impractical and expensive. A parenting coordinator with limited binding authority on this specific issue can resolve disputes quickly and at modest cost. We should be prepared to negotiate on this point, but we believe option (b) is the stronger position and should be our starting point at Session 3.
C. Parenting Plan Coordinator — Identity and Scope
Three subsidiary issues remain regarding the parenting plan coordinator:
Identity. Mr. Medrano's counsel is to confirm acceptance of Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls or propose alternative candidates. If KD&S proposes alternatives, we should be prepared to evaluate them and, if necessary, agree to a joint interview process. We believe Dr. Ingalls is well-qualified and that his appointment would serve the children's interests, but we should not be rigid on this point if KD&S has a reasonable alternative.
Scope of Authority. The parties need to define whether the coordinator's authority is advisory only or includes limited binding authority on scheduling disputes. As noted above in connection with the extracurricular cost issue, we prefer limited binding authority for scheduling disputes, which would encompass make-up time scheduling (Section IV.D below), minor modifications to the regular schedule, and resolution of conflicts between the regular schedule and holidays or special events. KD&S may resist binding authority; a compromise position would be to grant binding authority only on scheduling matters (not financial or educational decisions) and only for disputes involving less than five overnights per quarter.
Cost-Sharing. The coordinator's fees need to be allocated between the parties. We propose a 70/30 split (Fonseca/Medrano), consistent with the income-based allocation used for tuition and healthcare. If KD&S pushes for a 50/50 split, we can negotiate within the 50/50 to 70/30 range.
D. Make-Up Time Scheduling Protocol
The on-location work provision (Section III.F) contemplates that make-up time will be scheduled within 60 days of the traveling parent's return. However, the parties have not yet agreed on a specific protocol for how make-up time is scheduled. We propose the following three-step protocol:
(1) The traveling parent provides a written schedule request to the other parent within seven (7) calendar days of returning from the on-location assignment, proposing specific dates for make-up time.
(2) The other parent responds in writing within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the request, either accepting the proposed dates, proposing alternative dates, or identifying scheduling conflicts.
(3) If the parents are unable to reach agreement within 14 calendar days of the initial request, the matter is referred to the parenting coordinator for resolution pursuant to the coordinator's authority as defined in the agreement.
This protocol is designed to ensure prompt scheduling of make-up time while providing a clear escalation path in the event of disagreement. We believe KD&S is likely to find this protocol reasonable, as it protects Mr. Medrano's ability to recover missed time while also ensuring that make-up time does not unduly disrupt the children's regular routine.
E. Right of First Refusal
Ms. Fonseca proposed a right of first refusal for childcare when a parent is unavailable for more than eight (8) consecutive hours during that parent's custodial time. Under this provision, before engaging a babysitter, nanny, or other third-party childcare provider for a period exceeding eight hours, the custodial parent must first offer the other parent the opportunity to care for the children during that period.
Mr. Medrano's counsel indicated general agreement with the concept of a right of first refusal but wants to discuss two specific aspects of the provision: (i) the threshold duration (eight hours versus a longer threshold, such as twelve hours or overnight), and (ii) the notice mechanism (how much advance notice must be given to the other parent, and whether the other parent's failure to respond within a specified period constitutes a waiver of the right).
Our position is that the eight-hour threshold is appropriate and in line with common practice in Los Angeles County family law cases. We can be flexible on the notice mechanism and propose a two-hour advance notice requirement, with a one-hour response window. If the other parent does not respond within one hour, the custodial parent may engage third-party childcare without waiving the other parent's right of first refusal for future instances.
F. Final Language — Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality Clause
Both sides agree in principle on the need for a non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, but the precise scope of the clause has not been negotiated. The following specific issues need to be addressed in drafting:
• Social Media Provisions: Whether the clause expressly prohibits or restricts social media posts that reference the other parent, the custody proceedings, or the terms of the agreement. Given both parties' public profiles, this is a sensitive issue.
• Exceptions for Family Members: Whether either parent is permitted to discuss the terms of the agreement with immediate family members (e.g., parents, siblings) who may be providing childcare or emotional support.
• Definition of Disparagement: Whether the clause defines "disparagement" broadly (any negative statement) or narrowly (only false or misleading statements), and whether the definition includes statements by implication.
• Remedies for Breach: Whether the clause includes liquidated damages, injunctive relief, or both as remedies for breach.
We recommend proposing broad but reasonable language that prohibits both parties from making any public statement (including on social media) that is negative, derogatory, or disparaging about the other parent or that discloses the terms of the agreement, with exceptions for communications with legal counsel, tax and financial advisors, therapists, and immediate family members who agree to be bound by the same confidentiality obligations.
V. MINOR'S COUNSEL INPUT
Minor's Counsel, Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq., participated by telephone during the joint session and a brief caucus session on December 15, 2023. Her participation, while limited in duration, provided valuable input on the emerging framework. The following summarizes her key observations and requests:
Ms. Brannigan expressed general support for the emerging settlement framework. She noted that the 232/133 overnight split is consistent with Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation recommendations regarding stability for both children, particularly Isabela, who is now in first grade at Ridgeview Academy and benefits significantly from a consistent school-week routine. Ms. Brannigan also observed that the midweek Wednesday overnight with Mr. Medrano is a positive feature of the proposed schedule, as it ensures that the children maintain regular and meaningful contact with their father during the school week without disrupting the overall stability of their weekday routine.
Ms. Brannigan indicated that she will provide a written statement of her position on the final proposed settlement terms once the remaining open issues identified in Section IV are resolved. She expects to complete this statement in advance of Session 3 and will circulate it to both parties' counsel. Her written statement will address whether she supports the proposed terms and will be filed with the court as part of the stipulation package.
In addition, Ms. Brannigan made a specific request regarding the children's mental health. She asked that any final agreement include specific provisions requiring both parents to cooperate with any mental health professional working with the children, should therapy or counseling become necessary in the future. Specifically, she requested the following:
(a) A provision requiring both parents to consent to and facilitate individual therapy or counseling for either child if recommended by the children's pediatrician, school counselor, or the parenting plan coordinator.
(b) A provision requiring both parents to participate in joint or individual sessions with any therapist working with the children, if the therapist recommends such participation.
(c) A provision prohibiting either parent from unilaterally terminating a child's therapy without the other parent's written consent or a court order.
These requests are reasonable and consistent with best practices in custody agreements involving young children. We recommend incorporating provisions addressing each of Ms. Brannigan's requests into the final agreement and discussing the specific language with KD&S at or before Session 3.
VI. FINANCIAL SUMMARY — SUPPORT AND COST-SHARING OVERVIEW
The following table summarizes the key financial terms of the emerging settlement framework:
Summary of Ms. Fonseca's Annual Financial Obligations:
• Child support: $13,200 per year
• Tuition (Ridgeview Academy): $41,440 per year
• Extracurricular activities (estimated, based on current activity levels and 40% share): approximately $4,500 to $5,200 per year
• Health insurance premiums (dependent coverage): approximately $3,600 per year (estimated)
• Unreimbursed healthcare expenses (70% share): variable, estimated at $2,000 to $4,000 per year based on historical averages
Estimated total annual cost to Ms. Fonseca: Approximately $64,740 to $67,440, exclusive of the direct costs of maintaining the primary household and providing for the children during her custodial time.
A complete net annual cost analysis, incorporating all categories of expense and accounting for tax implications, is to be calculated by Nadia Petrov and included in the final settlement terms memorandum for Ms. Fonseca's review prior to Session 3.
VII. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
A. Preparation for Session 3
Mediation Session 3 is currently scheduled for January 19, 2024, at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. In preparation for the session, we recommend the following:
First, we should prepare a focused mediation brief addressing each of the open issues identified in Section IV above, with specific proposed language for each provision. The brief should present our positions clearly while signaling flexibility on the issues where we have room to negotiate (e.g., the parenting coordinator's identity and the right of first refusal threshold). The brief should be completed by January 12, 2024, to allow time for Ms. Fonseca's review before the session.
Second, we should circulate a written proposal to KD&S via email formalizing the terms agreed at Session 2, including the 232/133 overnight split, the $1,100 per month child support figure, and the extracurricular cost allocation. This written proposal will serve as the baseline for Session 3 negotiations and will reduce the risk of backtracking on previously agreed terms. The target date for circulating this proposal is on or about December 22, 2023, before the holiday break. Nadia Petrov should prepare the first draft for my review by December 20, 2023.
B. Drafting. To maximize efficiency and take advantage of the momentum generated by Session 2, we recommend beginning to draft the following documents in parallel with Session 3 preparation:
(1) Stipulated Custody and Parenting Plan Agreement — the master agreement setting forth all custodial terms, including legal custody, physical custody, timeshare schedule, holiday rotation, travel provisions, on-location work provisions, right of first refusal, parenting coordinator appointment, non-disparagement and confidentiality clause, therapy/counseling provisions, and modification provisions.
(2) Child Support Agreement — the stipulated child support order, incorporating the $1,100 per month figure, the deviation findings, and the annual review provision.
(3) Exhibit A: Holiday and Vacation Schedule — a detailed schedule setting forth the specific dates, times, and transition logistics for each holiday, vacation period, and special occasion.
(4) Exhibit B: Right of First Refusal and Travel Notice Protocol — a standalone exhibit setting forth the ROFR provisions and the notice requirements for domestic and international travel.
(5) Exhibit C: Extracurricular and Healthcare Cost-Sharing Protocol — a standalone exhibit setting forth the cost-sharing formulas, the quarterly cap, the dispute resolution mechanism, and the reimbursement procedures.
If Session 3 results in full agreement on all remaining open issues, having execution-ready documents prepared in advance will allow us to circulate final drafts within days of the session, minimizing the risk that the agreement unravels during a protracted drafting process. I recommend assigning initial drafting to Nadia Petrov, with my review on all documents. Drafting should commence during the first week of January 2024, with a target completion date of January 15, 2024, for first drafts.
C. Communication with Client
We should schedule a telephone call with Ms. Fonseca during the week of December 18, 2023, to debrief on Session 2 outcomes and prepare her for Session 3. Specifically, the call should cover the following:
• A summary of the terms agreed at Session 2 and the remaining open issues.
• Confirmation of her acceptance of the $1,100 per month child support figure and the 60/40 extracurricular cost split. Ms. Fonseca expressed comfort with this framework during Session 2, but we should confirm her position in writing (via follow-up email after the call) to ensure that we have clear authorization to proceed on these terms.
• Discussion of her preferences regarding the open issues (holiday schedule details, children's birthday allocation, parenting coordinator selection, right of first refusal threshold, and non-disparagement clause scope).
• Preparation for the dynamic of Session 3, including the possibility that KD&S may seek to reopen one or more previously agreed terms as leverage on the remaining open issues.
D. Coordination with Minor's Counsel
We should follow up with Tessa Brannigan, Esq., regarding two items. First, we should request her written position statement on the emerging settlement framework and confirm that she anticipates completing it in advance of Session 3. Second, we should discuss the therapy and counseling provisions she raised during Session 2 and share proposed language for her review. A brief telephone call during the first week of January 2024 should be sufficient to address both items.
E. Budget Update
Total fees billed to Ms. Fonseca through December 2023 are tracking within the estimated range of $120,000 to $175,000 that was provided at engagement. As of the date of this memorandum, our estimate of total fees billed through November 30, 2023, is approximately $118,500, with an estimated additional $8,000 to $10,000 for December 2023 work (including Session 2 attendance, this memorandum, and related activities), bringing the estimated year-to-date total to approximately $126,500 to $128,500.
With anticipated drafting of the agreement and exhibits, preparation for Session 3, Session 3 attendance, post-session revisions, and finalization of the stipulated agreement for filing, we estimate that total fees at the conclusion of this matter will be approximately $140,000 to $150,000, plus costs (including the mediator's fees, Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation fees, and the Yamamoto Brace & Liu forensic income analysis). This estimate assumes that Session 3 is successful in resolving all remaining open issues and that no contested hearing is required. If the matter does not settle at Session 3, the fee estimate would need to be revised upward to account for additional mediation sessions or hearing preparation.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Mediation Session 2 yielded substantial and meaningful progress toward a comprehensive resolution of this custody and child support matter. The core economic and custodial framework is now largely agreed, including joint legal custody with educational tie-breaking authority to Ms. Fonseca, a 63.6/36.4 timeshare, child support of $1,100 per month (below guideline), tuition cost-sharing at 70/30, and an extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement that balances the support deviation. The remaining open issues, while important, are primarily implementation and process details that should be resolvable at Session 3 with adequate preparation.
The overall trajectory of these negotiations is positive. Both parties appear genuinely motivated to reach a settlement, and the mediator, Hon. Yee, has been effective at facilitating creative solutions and maintaining forward momentum. Minor's counsel supports the emerging framework, which aligns with the custody evaluation recommendations.
If Session 3 is successful, we anticipate executing the stipulated agreement in late January 2024 and filing for court approval shortly thereafter. Given the parties' stipulation and the alignment with Dr. Sorensen's recommendations, we expect that court approval will be routine and that the matter can be concluded by early to mid-February 2024.
Finally, I recommend a brief discussion with Oliver Mackenzie regarding the overall status of this matter. Mr. Mackenzie's involvement to date has been supervisory, and no additional partner-level engagement is anticipated unless unexpected complications arise at Session 3 or thereafter. However, given the total fees approaching the engagement estimate and the proximity of a resolution, a brief status update is prudent.
I am available to discuss this memorandum and the recommended next steps at your earliest convenience.
Distribution: Priya Anand only (and Oliver Mackenzie upon Anand's direction)
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Category | Total Amount | Fonseca Share | Medrano Share
Child Support (monthly) | $1,100/mo | Pays $1,100/mo | Receives $1,100/mo
Child Support (annual) | $13,200/yr | Pays $13,200/yr | Receives $13,200/yr
Guideline Deviation | $174/mo below guideline | — | —
Tuition — Ridgeview Academy (annual) | $59,200/yr | $41,440/yr (70%) | $17,760/yr (30%)
Extracurriculars (per child per quarter, capped) | Up to $1,500/child/qtr | 40% | 60%
Healthcare — Insurance | On Fonseca's plan | Premium cost borne by Fonseca | N/A
Healthcare — Unreimbursed expenses | Varies | 70% | 30%

MEMORANDUM

MATTER NO.: 1035-00002

I. PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM

IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3

V. MINOR'S COUNSEL INPUT

VII. RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

VIII. CONCLUSION

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts