CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1115 ET SEQ.
CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF OF PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA — SESSION 1
In re the Custody and Support of ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO, Minor Children
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Case No. 22STFL09847
Submitted to:
Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.), Mediator Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Submitted by:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Devon Archer, Lead Associate (CA State Bar No. 305219) Priya Anand, Partner (CA State Bar No. 241087)
On behalf of:
Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, Petitioner
Dated: November 10, 2023 Mediation Session 1 Scheduled: November 17, 2023 C&H Matter No.: 1035-00002
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF
This confidential mediation brief is submitted on behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") in advance of the first mediation session scheduled for November 17, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.), at the offices of Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. This brief is intended solely for the use of the mediator and is submitted pursuant to, and under the protections of, the California Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1128, governing the confidentiality of mediation communications.
The purpose of this brief is to provide the mediator with the necessary background and context to facilitate a productive first session. Specifically, this brief is intended to: (a) summarize the procedural history of this matter and the dissolution proceedings that preceded it; (b) identify the issues in dispute between the parties; (c) present an overview of the key findings and recommendations of the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D.; and (d) set forth Ms. Fonseca's proposals for the resolution of all outstanding issues relating to custody, the parenting plan, and child support.
Ms. Fonseca's overriding goal in this mediation is to reach a comprehensive, durable agreement that serves the best interests of Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano ("Isabela") and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano ("Mateo") without the emotional toll, financial burden, and public exposure that would inevitably accompany contested litigation. Ms. Fonseca recognizes that both she and Respondent Rafael J. Medrano ("Mr. Medrano") love their children deeply and are committed to their well-being. She believes that a mediated resolution offers the best path toward a co-parenting arrangement that honors both parents' roles in the children's lives while providing the stability and consistency that Isabela and Mateo need during this critical stage of their development.
Ms. Fonseca is informed and believes that Respondent Rafael J. Medrano is represented in this matter by Gwendolyn R. Kwan, Partner, and Benjamin T. Okafor, Associate, of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, located at 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, CA 91505. Ms. Kwan's California State Bar number is 218453, and Mr. Okafor's California State Bar number is 312776.
Additionally, this brief notes that Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), was appointed by the Court on June 22, 2023, pursuant to California Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of Isabela and Mateo in this proceeding. Ms. Brannigan has been provided a copy of Ms. Fonseca's parenting plan proposals discussed herein and has indicated that she will participate in the mediation session to the extent the mediator and the parties find her participation useful. Ms. Fonseca welcomes Minor's Counsel's involvement as a means of ensuring that the children's voices and needs remain at the center of these discussions.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Domestic Partnership and Dissolution
Marguerite D. Fonseca and Rafael J. Medrano registered their domestic partnership on September 12, 2015, with the California Secretary of State, under File Number DP-2015-038741. At the time, both parties resided in the greater Los Angeles area and were building their respective careers in the entertainment industry. The parties maintained a joint household in Studio City for the majority of the partnership.
Two children were born of the relationship:
1. Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano, born February 11, 2017, who is currently six (6) years of age; and
2. Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano, born August 29, 2019, who is currently four (4) years of age.
The parties' relationship began to deteriorate in late 2021 and early 2022, as the demands of their respective careers and the pressures of parenthood created increasing tension. Ms. Fonseca filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership on July 8, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The matter was assigned Case Number 22STFL09847.
The property and support issues between the parties with respect to each other (as distinct from child-related issues) were resolved relatively expeditiously. A Judgment of Dissolution was entered on November 3, 2022. Critically, however, the Judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction over all matters relating to the custody of, visitation with, and child support for the parties' minor children, Isabela and Mateo. At the time of the dissolution judgment, the parties did not formalize a custody arrangement. Instead, they relied on an informal arrangement under which the children split their time between both parents on an ad hoc basis, generally weighted toward Ms. Fonseca as the parent who managed the children's school schedules, medical appointments, and daily logistics.
B. Breakdown of the Informal Arrangement and Initiation of This Matter
The informal arrangement, while well-intentioned, proved unsustainable. The precipitating event occurred in early 2023, when Mr. Medrano accepted a seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, for a major studio production. Mr. Medrano departed for Vancouver without having previously discussed the assignment with Ms. Fonseca, without executing any written agreement regarding the children's care during his absence, and without proposing a structured plan for make-up parenting time upon his return. The children were left full-time with Ms. Fonseca for the duration of the seven-week period.
While Ms. Fonseca was, of course, happy to care for the children and ensured that their routines were maintained, Mr. Medrano's unilateral decision to accept an extended out-of-town work assignment without advance discussion or planning underscored the fragility of the informal arrangement and the need for a formal, enforceable parenting plan. The Vancouver incident disrupted the children's expectations of time with their father, created uncertainty about scheduling, and placed the entire burden of day-to-day parenting on Ms. Fonseca without any advance notice or negotiation.
Recognizing that the informal arrangement could not continue, Ms. Fonseca engaged the family law practice group of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. The engagement letter was signed on April 18, 2023. On May 2, 2023, Ms. Fonseca filed a Request for Order (RFO) regarding custody and child support, accompanied by her sworn declaration setting forth the factual basis for the request and a fully completed Income and Expense Declaration (Judicial Council Form FL-150).
C. Temporary Orders and Subsequent Proceedings
The Court heard Ms. Fonseca's Request for Order on May 30, 2023. After considering the declarations and arguments of both parties, the Court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceeding. The temporary order provided that the children would reside primarily with Ms. Fonseca during the school week and spend alternating weekends and one midweek evening with Mr. Medrano, subject to adjustment by agreement of the parties.
On June 22, 2023, the Court appointed Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 267894), as Minor's Counsel pursuant to California Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of both minor children. The Court found that the appointment was appropriate in light of the complexity of the custody issues, the parties' high-profile careers in the entertainment industry, and the need for independent advocacy on behalf of Isabela and Mateo.
On July 14, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation providing for two important measures:
First, the parties stipulated to the appointment of Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License Number PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., located at 15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 420, Encino, CA 91436, as the custody evaluator pursuant to California Family Code section 3111. Dr. Sorensen's fee of $18,500 was to be split equally between the parties, with each party responsible for $9,250. The stipulation set forth the scope of Dr. Sorensen's evaluation, which was to include individual interviews with both parents, home visits at both residences, individual sessions with both children using age-appropriate techniques, collateral contacts with relevant third parties, and psychological testing of both parents.
Second, the parties stipulated to the sealing of the court file pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. The basis for the sealing order was the finding that both parties are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry, that the disclosure of the contents of the court file could subject both parties and the minor children to unwanted media attention, and that the children's privacy interests are paramount.
The Court entered orders on both stipulations on July 14, 2023. Dr. Sorensen commenced her evaluation promptly and delivered her written custody evaluation report on October 6, 2023. The contents and recommendations of that report are summarized in Section IV of this brief.
Following the receipt of the custody evaluation report, the parties agreed — through their respective counsel and with the encouragement of Minor's Counsel — to attempt resolution through mediation before proceeding to a contested evidentiary hearing. The Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) was jointly selected as mediator, and the first session was scheduled for November 17, 2023.
III. THE PARTIES
A. Marguerite D. Fonseca (Petitioner)
Marguerite Delphine Fonseca is thirty-nine (39) years of age, born June 14, 1984. She currently resides at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. Ms. Fonseca has resided at this address since 2019 and maintains a stable, well-established home for the children in a family-friendly neighborhood conveniently located near the children's school, Ridgeview Academy, in nearby Sherman Oaks.
Ms. Fonseca is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development, at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Luminos"), a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505. Luminos is a mid-major streaming and production company with a growing portfolio of original programming. In her role, Ms. Fonseca oversees a slate of approximately eighteen (18) original series across multiple genres, managing creative development, production budgets, and talent relationships. She has been with Luminos since 2017 and has risen steadily within the organization, reflecting both her professional accomplishments and the company's confidence in her leadership.
Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation is approximately $870,000 (gross), comprised of the following components:
This corresponds to a gross monthly income of approximately $72,500 ($870,000 ÷ 12).
Importantly, Ms. Fonseca's work schedule is primarily office-based at the Luminos headquarters in Burbank, which is a short commute from both her Studio City residence and the children's school. While her position occasionally requires travel for industry events, production meetings, or location visits, such travel is infrequent and typically of short duration (two to four days). Ms. Fonseca is able to maintain a stable, predictable daily schedule for the children, including morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up or coordination of pick-up with trusted caregivers.
Throughout the parties' domestic partnership and since the dissolution, Ms. Fonseca has been the children's primary caretaker. She has been the parent who manages school logistics — including enrollment, tuition payments, parent-teacher conferences, and communication with school administration — as well as medical appointments, dental visits, coordination of extracurricular activities, arrangement of playdates, and the day-to-day rhythms of the children's lives. This is not to diminish Mr. Medrano's involvement as a father, but rather to accurately describe the allocation of parenting responsibilities as it has existed in practice.
B. Rafael J. Medrano (Respondent)
Rafael J. Medrano is forty-one (41) years of age, born March 22, 1982. He currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apt. 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602. Mr. Medrano relocated to this apartment following the parties' separation.
Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography who works through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Mr. Medrano is well-regarded in his field and has built a solid career shooting television series, feature films, and commercial projects. His work is project-based and varies significantly from year to year in both volume and compensation.
Mr. Medrano's income has been analyzed by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, a forensic accounting firm retained by Ms. Fonseca for the purpose of establishing Mr. Medrano's earning capacity. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis, which was based on three years of verified tax returns, financial records from Medrano Visuals, LLC, bank statements, and industry compensation data, establishes a three-year average annual income of approximately $340,000. This figure corresponds to an imputed gross monthly income of approximately $28,333 ($340,000 ÷ 12). The imputation of income at this level is consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b), which permits the court to consider earning capacity in lieu of actual income where a party's income is variable or where a party has the ability to earn more than is actually being earned.
The nature of Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career is central to many of the issues in this matter. His work involves periodic on-location shoots of varying duration, including assignments that require multi-week absences from the Los Angeles area. The seven-week Vancouver shoot referenced above is one example, but it is not an isolated incident. Over the past three years, Mr. Medrano has accepted at least four assignments requiring travel of ten or more consecutive days outside the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. His schedule is inherently unpredictable, with assignments sometimes arising on relatively short notice and requiring rapid deployment to a distant location.
Ms. Fonseca wishes to emphasize that she does not seek to minimize Mr. Medrano's relationship with the children. Mr. Medrano is a loving and involved father when he is present and available. Both Isabela and Mateo enjoy their time with their father and benefit from his warmth, creativity, and affection. Ms. Fonseca's objective in this mediation is not to exclude Mr. Medrano from the children's lives, but rather to establish a structured parenting plan that accounts for the practical reality of his travel schedule and ensures that the children's need for stability and routine is met, particularly during the school year.
C. The Minor Children
Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano was born on February 11, 2017, and is currently six (6) years of age. Isabela is enrolled in the first grade at Ridgeview Academy, a private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Annual tuition for Isabela is $32,400. Isabela is thriving academically and socially at Ridgeview. She is a bright, articulate, and socially engaged child who benefits from the consistency of her school and home routine. Isabela has developed strong friendships with her classmates and is actively involved in several school-related activities. Her teachers have consistently reported that she is performing at or above grade level and is well-adjusted in the classroom environment.
Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano was born on August 29, 2019, and is currently four (4) years of age. Mateo is enrolled in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview Academy, at the same campus as his sister. Annual tuition for Mateo is $26,800. Mateo is adjusting well to the school environment and is progressing appropriately in his developmental milestones. As is typical for a child of his age, Mateo is particularly attached to routine and benefits from predictability in his daily schedule. Dr. Sorensen's evaluation, discussed in greater detail below, confirmed the importance of maintaining consistent routines for Mateo given his developmental stage.
Both children attend Ridgeview Academy, which provides an integrated, family-centered educational environment that both parties have agreed is appropriate for the children. The total combined annual tuition for both children is $59,200 ($32,400 + $26,800). Ridgeview Academy is located in Sherman Oaks, approximately a ten-minute drive from Ms. Fonseca's Studio City residence, making the school conveniently accessible for daily drop-off and pick-up.
IV. SUMMARY OF THE CUSTODY EVALUATION REPORT
A. Overview of Dr. Sorensen's Evaluation Process
As noted above, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License Number PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C., was appointed by stipulation and order of the Court as the custody evaluator in this matter. Dr. Sorensen is a licensed psychologist with over seventeen years of experience in family law evaluations and child custody matters, and she is well-known and respected in the Los Angeles family law community.
Dr. Sorensen conducted a thorough and comprehensive evaluation over a period of approximately ten weeks. Her process included the following components:
• Individual clinical interviews with both Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Medrano, each consisting of two sessions of approximately ninety minutes;
• Home visits at both residences — the Studio City home of Ms. Fonseca and the North Hollywood apartment of Mr. Medrano — during which Dr. Sorensen observed the physical environment, the children's spaces, and the interactions between each parent and the children;
• Individual sessions with both Isabela and Mateo, conducted using age-appropriate techniques designed to elicit the children's feelings, preferences, and experiences without leading or suggestion;
• Collateral contacts with relevant third parties, including school personnel at Ridgeview Academy (the children's teachers and the head of the lower school), the children's pediatrician (Dr. Anita Chakravorty, M.D.), and family friends identified by both parties;
• Standardized psychological testing of both parents, including the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2), the MCMI-IV (Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, Fourth Edition), and the Parenting Stress Index (PSI-4); and
• Review of relevant documents, including the parties' declarations, financial records, and correspondence.
Dr. Sorensen's written custody evaluation report was delivered to the parties and to Minor's Counsel on October 6, 2023. The report is comprehensive, spanning approximately forty-two pages, and includes Dr. Sorensen's factual findings, clinical observations, and recommendations. A complete copy of the report has been provided to the mediator under separate cover. The following subsections summarize the key findings and recommendations most relevant to the issues before the mediator.
B. Key Findings Favorable to Ms. Fonseca
Dr. Sorensen's report contains several findings that are particularly relevant to Ms. Fonseca's proposals in this mediation:
Primary Attachment and Caretaking Role. Dr. Sorensen identified Ms. Fonseca as the primary attachment figure and day-to-day caretaker for both children throughout the duration of the parties' relationship and in the period since the dissolution. The report notes that Ms. Fonseca has consistently been the parent who manages the children's school schedules, communicates with their teachers, coordinates their medical appointments, arranges their extracurricular activities, and maintains the day-to-day structure of their lives. Both children demonstrated a strong, secure attachment to Ms. Fonseca during the evaluation sessions.
Home Environment. Dr. Sorensen described Ms. Fonseca's Studio City residence as well-organized, child-centered, and well-suited to the children's needs. The home includes a dedicated playroom, individual bedrooms for each child that are decorated and furnished in an age-appropriate manner, and a safe outdoor space. The residence is proximate to Ridgeview Academy, which the evaluator noted reduces commute stress and allows for a more relaxed morning and afternoon routine.
Stable Work Schedule. Dr. Sorensen noted Ms. Fonseca's stable, office-based work schedule and her ability to provide consistent, predictable routines for the children. The evaluator found this stability to be particularly important given Mateo's developmental stage and his documented need for routine and predictability. Ms. Fonseca's ability to be reliably available for morning drop-off and to arrange timely afternoon pick-up was viewed favorably.
Active Involvement. Collateral contacts uniformly confirmed Ms. Fonseca's active involvement in school events, parent-teacher conferences, and coordination of the children's medical and extracurricular needs. Ridgeview Academy personnel described Ms. Fonseca as an engaged and communicative parent who is consistently present at school functions and responsive to the school's communications regarding the children's progress and needs.
C. Findings Regarding Mr. Medrano
Dr. Sorensen's report also addressed Mr. Medrano's strengths and the challenges presented by his professional circumstances:
Warm Parental Relationship. Dr. Sorensen acknowledged and emphasized Mr. Medrano's warm and loving relationship with both children and his genuine desire to be an involved and present parent. Both Isabela and Mateo were observed to be happy and comfortable in their father's company, and Mr. Medrano demonstrated genuine affection and engagement during the evaluation sessions. The evaluator found no concerns regarding Mr. Medrano's parenting capacity or the quality of his interactions with the children when he is available.
Schedule Unpredictability. However, the report devoted considerable attention to the inherent unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's freelance cinematography career and its impact on scheduling consistency for the children. Dr. Sorensen noted that the freelance nature of Mr. Medrano's work means that his availability for parenting time is subject to the timing, duration, and location of his professional assignments, which are not always known in advance and cannot always be declined without professional consequences.
The Vancouver Incident. The seven-week Vancouver shoot was specifically cited in the report as an example of Mr. Medrano prioritizing a significant work opportunity without adequate prior planning for the children's care or meaningful communication with Ms. Fonseca regarding the impact on the children's schedule. Dr. Sorensen found that Mr. Medrano's decision to accept the assignment without discussing it with Ms. Fonseca in advance — and without proposing a plan for maintaining his parenting time or providing make-up time — reflected a lack of co-parenting communication that was detrimental to the children's sense of stability.
Home Environment. Dr. Sorensen observed that Mr. Medrano's North Hollywood apartment, while adequate and maintained in a clean and safe condition, is smaller and less child-adapted than the Studio City residence. The apartment has one bedroom, with the children sharing a pull-out sofa in the living area during overnight visits. Dr. Sorensen noted that while this arrangement is acceptable for short-term visits, it is not ideal for an extended or primary residential arrangement, particularly as the children grow and require more personal space.
D. Evaluator's Recommendations
Based on her comprehensive evaluation, Dr. Sorensen made the following recommendations:
Joint Legal Custody. Dr. Sorensen recommended that the parties share joint legal custody of both children, finding that both parents are capable of participating in major decisions affecting the children's welfare. However, Dr. Sorensen recommended that Ms. Fonseca be granted tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, reflecting her established role as the parent most actively managing the children's school enrollment, academic progress, and communication with school personnel. The evaluator found that this limited grant of tie-breaking authority was appropriate to avoid deadlock on time-sensitive educational matters and was consistent with the historical allocation of educational decision-making between the parties.
Joint Physical Custody with Primary Residence. Dr. Sorensen recommended joint physical custody, with the primary residence designated with Ms. Fonseca. The evaluator found that the children's primary residence should remain in Studio City, where they have established routines, proximity to school, and a home environment that is well-adapted to their needs.
Timeshare. The evaluator recommended a timeshare arrangement that provides the children with meaningful and regular time with both parents while ensuring stability during the school year. Specifically, Dr. Sorensen suggested a majority timeshare with Ms. Fonseca during the school months, with a more balanced schedule during summer and holiday periods, to allow both children extended and meaningful time with Mr. Medrano when his availability is less constrained by the school calendar.
Work-Related Travel Provisions. Dr. Sorensen recommended that the parenting plan include structured provisions for situations in which either parent's work requires extended travel, with clearly defined thresholds for when custodial time transfers to the other parent and a built-in mechanism for scheduling make-up time within a reasonable period. The evaluator emphasized that such provisions should be reciprocal and applied equally to both parents, so as to avoid any perception of penalizing either parent's career choices while also ensuring that the children's need for consistent care is met.
Parenting Plan Coordinator. Dr. Sorensen recommended the appointment of a qualified parenting plan coordinator — ideally a licensed family therapist with experience in high-conflict co-parenting situations — to assist with the implementation of the parenting agreement and the resolution of day-to-day scheduling disputes without the need to return to court. The evaluator expressed the view that a parenting plan coordinator would be particularly beneficial during the initial implementation period, when the parties are adjusting to the structure of a formal agreement.
E. Children's Expressed Preferences
Dr. Sorensen's report included a discussion of the children's expressed preferences, assessed through age-appropriate evaluation techniques:
Isabela (age 6). Isabela expressed that she loves both of her parents and enjoys spending time with each of them. When asked in an age-appropriate manner about her feelings regarding where she lives and goes to school, Isabela indicated a preference for stability in her school routine and proximity to her friends in the Studio City and Sherman Oaks area. She expressed that she likes her room at her mother's house and enjoys the fact that her school is nearby. She also expressed that she misses her father when he is away for work and wishes she could see him more regularly. Dr. Sorensen noted that Isabela's responses were consistent across multiple sessions and did not appear to reflect coaching or parental influence.
Mateo (age 4). Mateo was too young to express a meaningful custodial preference in the manner that might be expected of an older child. However, Dr. Sorensen noted his strong attachment to routine and his observable comfort level in the Studio City home, where he has his own bedroom, familiar toys, and an established daily routine. The evaluator observed that Mateo was more settled and at ease during the home visit at the Studio City residence than during the visit at the North Hollywood apartment, though she cautioned against over-interpreting this observation given the many variables involved.
V. MS. FONSECA'S CUSTODY AND PARENTING PLAN PROPOSALS
Ms. Fonseca submits the following proposals for the mediator's consideration. These proposals are designed to be consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendations, reflective of the best interests of the children under California Family Code section 3011 and related provisions, and responsive to the practical realities of both parents' lives and careers.
A. Legal Custody
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties share joint legal custody of both Isabela and Mateo, consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation. Under this arrangement, both parents would share decision-making authority on all major issues affecting the children's welfare, including but not limited to decisions regarding education, healthcare, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities.
In keeping with the custody evaluator's recommendation, Ms. Fonseca requests that she be granted tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. This request is not intended to exclude Mr. Medrano from participation in educational decisions, nor to diminish the value of his input. Rather, it is a practical mechanism to avoid deadlock on time-sensitive educational matters, grounded in the evaluator's finding that Ms. Fonseca is the parent most actively managing the children's school enrollment and academic needs. Specifically, tie-breaking authority on educational decisions would encompass decisions regarding school selection and enrollment, decisions regarding grade retention or advancement, decisions regarding special education services or academic interventions, and decisions regarding tutoring or academic enrichment programs. Both parents would continue to have full access to all educational records and communications from the children's school, and both parents would be encouraged to attend parent-teacher conferences and school events.
On all other categories of major decisions — including healthcare, religious upbringing, and extracurricular activities — Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties be required to consult in good faith and reach mutual agreement. In the event of an impasse on such decisions, the parties would refer the dispute to the parenting plan coordinator before seeking court intervention.
B. Physical Custody — Timeshare Proposal
Ms. Fonseca proposes joint physical custody with the primary residence designated with Ms. Fonseca at her Studio City home.
School-Year Timeshare. During the school year (approximately 42 weeks), Ms. Fonseca proposes a timeshare of approximately 65% Ms. Fonseca and 35% Mr. Medrano. Under the proposed schedule:
• The children would spend Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday overnights with Ms. Fonseca each week.
• On alternating weekends, the children would spend Friday after school through Monday morning drop-off with Mr. Medrano.
• During weeks in which Mr. Medrano does not have the weekend, the children would spend one midweek overnight (Wednesday) with Mr. Medrano, with drop-off at school on Thursday morning.
This schedule yields approximately 237 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 128 overnights with Mr. Medrano during the school year. Expressed as percentages of the full year, this is approximately 64.9% with Ms. Fonseca and 35.1% with Mr. Medrano (237 ÷ 365 ≈ 64.9%; 128 ÷ 365 ≈ 35.1%).
This timeshare is designed to serve the children's need for stability and routine during the school year. By maintaining Monday through Thursday overnights with Ms. Fonseca as the default, the children have a consistent base from which to attend school, complete homework, and maintain their weekday routines. The alternating weekend schedule and midweek overnight ensure that Mr. Medrano has regular, meaningful time with the children throughout the school year, including both weekend and weekday experiences.
Summer Schedule. During the ten-week (70-day) summer break, when the children are not constrained by the school calendar and Mr. Medrano's availability is typically greater, Ms. Fonseca proposes a 50/50 split — 35 overnights with each parent. The summer period would be divided into alternating one-week or two-week blocks, to be agreed upon by the parties each year by a specified date (Ms. Fonseca suggests April 15 of each year). This summer schedule is intended to allow both children meaningful extended time with Mr. Medrano and to provide opportunities for the types of experiences — including travel and longer outings — that are more feasible during the summer months.
Effective Annual Totals. Accounting for the summer adjustment, the effective annual timeshare would be approximately as follows:
Ms. Fonseca believes this timeshare is fair, reasonable, and consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation for a majority timeshare with Ms. Fonseca during the school year and a more balanced schedule during the summer.
C. Holiday and Vacation Schedule
Ms. Fonseca proposes an alternating even-year/odd-year schedule for the allocation of major holidays between the parties. The proposed framework is as follows:
• Thanksgiving: Alternating years, beginning with Ms. Fonseca in even-numbered years and Mr. Medrano in odd-numbered years. Thanksgiving custody would run from Wednesday after school through Sunday evening at 6:00 p.m.
• Winter Break: Split into two halves. In even-numbered years, Ms. Fonseca would have the first half of winter break (from the last day of school through December 25 at 12:00 p.m.) and Mr. Medrano would have the second half (from December 25 at 12:00 p.m. through January 1 at 6:00 p.m.). The allocation would reverse in odd-numbered years.
• Spring Break: Alternating years, beginning with Mr. Medrano in even-numbered years and Ms. Fonseca in odd-numbered years. Spring break custody would run from the last day of school before the break through the day before school resumes.
• Designated Personal and Family Holidays: Each parent's birthday, Mother's Day (with Ms. Fonseca), Father's Day (with Mr. Medrano), and each parent's designated family or cultural holidays (to be specified in the final agreement).
A detailed holiday schedule, including specific dates and pick-up/drop-off times, would be set forth in an exhibit to the final parenting plan agreement. Ms. Fonseca is open to discussing modifications to this framework during the mediation session.
D. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions
Given the nature of both parties' careers in the entertainment industry, Ms. Fonseca proposes clear and enforceable provisions governing travel with the children and the impact of work-related travel on parenting time.
Travel with Children. Neither parent shall take the children outside the continental United States without providing at least thirty (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 authorizing the travel. This provision is intended to protect against unilateral international travel with the children and to ensure that both parents have meaningful input into travel decisions that involve crossing national borders.
Domestic travel with the children outside the State of California would require at least fourteen (14) days' written notice to the other parent, including the destination, dates of travel, and contact information.
On-Location Work Provision. This provision is designed to address the specific issue that precipitated the filing of the custody petition — Mr. Medrano's extended absences for on-location work — while treating both parents equally and avoiding any appearance of penalizing either parent's career choices.
If Mr. Medrano accepts work requiring travel of more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days outside the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, his custodial time during those days shall transfer to Ms. Fonseca. Mr. Medrano shall be entitled to make-up time equal to the number of custodial days lost, to be scheduled by mutual agreement within sixty (60) days of his return. If the parties cannot agree on a make-up schedule, the dispute shall be referred to the parenting plan coordinator.
If Ms. Fonseca's work requires travel of comparable duration (more than fourteen consecutive calendar days outside the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area), the reciprocal provision shall apply: her custodial time during those days shall transfer to Mr. Medrano, with make-up time to be scheduled within sixty (60) days under the same terms.
This provision is balanced, reciprocal, and designed to ensure that the children's care is not disrupted when either parent is away for an extended period. It acknowledges the realities of both parents' careers while establishing clear expectations and a mechanism for restoring lost parenting time.
E. Right of First Refusal
Ms. Fonseca proposes that when either parent is unavailable during their custodial time for a period exceeding eight (8) consecutive hours (other than during school hours or regular school-day childcare), the other parent shall have the right of first refusal for childcare before a third-party caretaker is engaged. This provision is intended to maximize each child's time with a parent when the custodial parent is temporarily unavailable and to foster a cooperative co-parenting relationship. The offering parent must provide reasonable advance notice (at least twenty-four hours when practicable) and the other parent may accept or decline without explanation.
F. Parenting Plan Coordinator
Consistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation, Ms. Fonseca proposes the appointment of a licensed family therapist as a parenting plan coordinator to assist with the implementation of the parenting agreement and the resolution of day-to-day scheduling disputes. The parenting plan coordinator would serve as the first point of contact for disputes arising under the parenting plan that the parties are unable to resolve directly, thereby reducing the need for court intervention on routine scheduling matters.
Ms. Fonseca envisions that the parenting plan coordinator's role would include:
• Assisting with the interpretation and implementation of the parenting plan provisions;
• Mediating scheduling disputes, including disputes regarding make-up time under the on-location work provision;
• Making recommendations (but not binding decisions) regarding adjustments to the schedule that serve the children's best interests; and
• Providing both parents with guidance on effective co-parenting communication.
Ms. Fonseca is open to the mediator's suggestion of an appropriate professional or to a joint selection process in which both parties participate. The costs of the parenting plan coordinator would be shared equally by the parties, or in proportion to their incomes if the parties so agree.
VI. MS. FONSECA'S CHILD SUPPORT PROPOSALS
A. Income Summary
For purposes of calculating child support, Ms. Fonseca presents the following income summary:
Ms. Fonseca's Gross Monthly Income: $72,500. This figure is derived from Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation of $870,000, which includes her base salary of $485,000, discretionary bonuses averaging $210,000 per year (based on a three-year average), and restricted stock unit (RSU) vesting of approximately $175,000 per year. The total annual compensation divided by twelve yields a gross monthly income of $72,500. Ms. Fonseca's income is fully documented in her Income and Expense Declaration (Form FL-150) filed with the Court and supplemented by her most recent pay stubs, W-2 statements, and RSU vesting schedules.
Mr. Medrano's Imputed Gross Monthly Income: $28,333. Mr. Medrano's income is variable due to the freelance nature of his cinematography work. The forensic income analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP, established a three-year average annual income of approximately $340,000, based on a thorough review of Mr. Medrano's verified tax returns (federal and California state) for tax years 2020, 2021, and 2022, financial records from Medrano Visuals, LLC (including bank statements, invoices, and profit-and-loss statements), and industry compensation data for cinematographers and directors of photography of comparable experience and reputation. The three-year average annual income of $340,000, divided by twelve, yields an imputed gross monthly income of $28,333. The imputation of income at this level is consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b), which authorizes the court to consider a parent's earning capacity in cases where income is variable.
Combined Gross Monthly Income: $100,833 ($72,500 + $28,333).
B. Guideline Child Support Calculation
Under the California child support guidelines set forth in California Family Code section 4055 et seq., child support is calculated using a statewide uniform formula that takes into account each parent's net disposable income, the number of children, and the percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children (the "timeshare"). The calculation is performed using the DissoMaster software program, which is the standard tool used by California courts and family law practitioners.
Using the income figures set forth above, with two children, and applying the proposed timeshare of approximately 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano, the DissoMaster guideline child support calculation yields a support obligation of $1,274 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano.
Although Ms. Fonseca earns significantly more than Mr. Medrano — approximately 2.56 times more — the guideline support amount is moderated by Ms. Fonseca's majority timeshare. Under the California formula, the higher-earning parent who also has majority physical custody pays less in support than would otherwise be the case, because that parent bears the direct costs of housing, feeding, clothing, and otherwise providing for the children during a greater percentage of the time. In other words, the formula recognizes that Ms. Fonseca's majority timeshare means she is already absorbing a disproportionate share of the children's direct living costs.
C. Proposed Deviation from Guideline
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties negotiate a deviation from the guideline child support amount in the context of a comprehensive settlement that includes specific cost-sharing arrangements for education and extracurricular activities. California Family Code section 4057(b) permits deviation from the guideline amount where the parties agree to a non-guideline support figure and the court finds that the agreement is in the children's best interests and that the parties have been fully informed of the guideline amount.
Specifically, the basis for the proposed deviation under section 4057(b) is the parties' anticipated agreement to specified non-guideline cost-sharing arrangements for the children's private school tuition and extracurricular expenses, which supplement the basic child support obligation and effectively redirect funds that would otherwise flow through the support payment into direct expenditures for the children's benefit.
Ms. Fonseca anticipates proposing child support in the range of $1,100 per month — a reduction of approximately $174 per month from the guideline figure — with Mr. Medrano assuming a greater proportional share of the children's extracurricular costs in exchange for the reduction in the base support amount. The specific terms of this trade-off are subject to discussion during the mediation, and Ms. Fonseca is prepared to present the detailed calculations and rationale at the session.
D. Education Cost-Sharing
Both Isabela and Mateo attend Ridgeview Academy, and both parties agree that the children should continue to do so. The total combined annual tuition for both children is $59,200, broken down as follows:
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties share the cost of tuition in proportion to their respective incomes. Specifically, Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70/30 split, with Ms. Fonseca paying 70% of the total tuition cost and Mr. Medrano paying 30%. This allocation closely reflects the approximate ratio of the parties' respective incomes to their combined income:
• Ms. Fonseca: $72,500 ÷ $100,833 ≈ 71.9%
• Mr. Medrano: $28,333 ÷ $100,833 ≈ 28.1%
Under the proposed 70/30 split, the allocation would be:
This allocation ensures that both parents contribute to the children's education in a manner that is proportional to their financial means, while the slight rounding (70/30 rather than 71.9/28.1) simplifies the calculation and modestly favors Mr. Medrano.
E. Extracurricular Activities
Both Isabela and Mateo participate in age-appropriate extracurricular and enrichment activities, including art classes, swimming lessons, and, in Isabela's case, a beginning gymnastics program. Ms. Fonseca proposes that the cost of extracurricular and enrichment activities be addressed as part of the overall child support package. She is open to discussing an allocation of extracurricular costs that may differ from the income-proportional 70/30 split in order to facilitate agreement on a below-guideline base support figure as described in Section VI.C above. Ms. Fonseca anticipates that the specific allocation of extracurricular costs will be a point of discussion during the mediation session and is prepared to present options for the mediator's consideration.
F. Healthcare. The children are currently covered under 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 dependent children. Ms. Fonseca proposes that she continue to maintain this coverage, as it provides high-quality insurance at a reasonable cost through her employer.
Unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses — that is, costs not covered by the insurance plan, including co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses for services not covered by the plan — would be split between the parties on a 70/30 basis (70% Ms. Fonseca / 30% Mr. Medrano), consistent with the income-proportional ratio applied to tuition and other shared expenses.
G. Annual Review
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the child support arrangement, including both the base support amount and the cost-sharing provisions, be subject to review on each anniversary of the date of the support order. In addition, either party would have the right to request a review upon a material change in circumstances, which Ms. Fonseca proposes be defined as:
• A change in either party's gross annual income exceeding fifteen percent (15%); or
• A change in the parties' timeshare exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total annual overnights.
This annual review mechanism is designed to ensure that the child support arrangement remains fair and responsive to changes in the parties' financial circumstances and parenting schedules over time, while avoiding unnecessary relitigation of support based on minor or temporary fluctuations.
VII. ISSUES FOR MEDIATION AND MS. FONSECA'S SETTLEMENT OBJECTIVES
A. Primary Issues to Be Resolved
Ms. Fonseca identifies the following as the primary issues to be addressed during the mediation process:
1. Timeshare Percentage. The specific allocation of parenting time between the parties during the school year and summer, including the detailed weekly schedule. Ms. Fonseca anticipates that Mr. Medrano will seek a higher timeshare than the 65/35 school-year and 50/50 summer arrangement she has proposed. Ms. Fonseca's position is that the proposed timeshare is well-supported by the custody evaluation, consistent with the children's established routines, and serves the children's best interests.
2. On-Location Work Provisions. The specific terms of the provision governing the transfer of custodial time when either parent accepts work requiring extended travel, including the threshold for triggering the provision (Ms. Fonseca proposes 14 consecutive calendar days), the parameters for scheduling make-up time, and the role of the parenting plan coordinator in resolving disputes under this provision.
3. Child Support Amount. The base monthly child support obligation, including whether the parties will agree to a deviation from the guideline amount and, if so, the terms and conditions of that deviation.
4. Education and Extracurricular Cost-Sharing. The specific allocation of tuition costs, extracurricular activity costs, and related educational expenses between the parties.
5. Travel Notice and Consent Requirements. The specific terms governing domestic and international travel with the children, including notice periods, consent requirements, and any geographic limitations.
6. Selection and Appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator. The identification and appointment of a qualified professional to serve as parenting plan coordinator, including the scope of the coordinator's authority, the process for engaging the coordinator, and the allocation of the coordinator's fees between the parties.
B. Ms. Fonseca's Settlement Priorities
Ms. Fonseca approaches this mediation with the following priorities, listed in order of importance:
First and foremost, stability and consistency for the children, particularly during the school year. Ms. Fonseca believes that the single most important outcome of this mediation is an agreement that provides Isabela and Mateo with a predictable, consistent routine during the school year. Both children — and Mateo in particular — thrive on routine, and the disruptions caused by the informal arrangement and Mr. Medrano's unplanned travel have underscored the need for a structured, enforceable parenting plan.
Second, a structured mechanism for handling work-related travel by either parent. The on-location work provision is of central importance to Ms. Fonseca. Without a clear, enforceable mechanism for addressing extended work-related travel, the parties are likely to face repeated scheduling conflicts and the children are likely to experience the same kind of disruption that prompted this proceeding.
Third, fair financial support arrangements that reflect the parties' respective incomes and the timeshare. Ms. Fonseca is prepared to pay child support to Mr. Medrano and to bear the majority of the children's educational and healthcare costs, consistent with her higher income. She seeks an arrangement that is financially fair to both parties and that ensures the children's needs are fully met.
Fourth, avoidance of contested litigation. Ms. Fonseca strongly prefers a mediated resolution for the benefit of both parents and, most importantly, for the benefit of the children. Contested litigation is financially costly, emotionally draining, and inevitably increases the level of conflict between the parties — conflict that the children will sense and from which they will suffer. Ms. Fonseca is committed to working constructively with the mediator and with Mr. Medrano's counsel to reach a comprehensive agreement.
C. Areas of Anticipated Agreement
Ms. Fonseca believes that there are several areas in which the parties are likely to reach agreement, either at the outset of the mediation or with relatively modest negotiation:
• Joint Legal Custody. Both parties appear to agree in principle that they should share joint legal custody of the children. The scope of tie-breaking authority on educational decisions may require some discussion, but Ms. Fonseca is cautiously optimistic that this issue can be resolved.
• Continuation at Ridgeview Academy. Both parties agree that the children should continue to attend Ridgeview Academy. The allocation of tuition costs will require negotiation, but the underlying decision to maintain the children's current school enrollment is not in dispute.
• Parenting Plan Coordinator. Both parties appear to recognize the benefit of appointing a parenting plan coordinator to assist with implementation and dispute resolution. The selection of a specific individual will require discussion, but the concept itself does not appear to be contested.
• Good-Faith Participation. Both parties have demonstrated their willingness to mediate in good faith by jointly agreeing to this mediation process, selecting the mediator, and committing to the November 17, 2023 session. Ms. Fonseca views this mutual willingness as a positive foundation for the discussions ahead.
D. Areas of Anticipated Dispute
Ms. Fonseca also identifies several areas in which she anticipates disagreement with Mr. Medrano, so that the mediator may be prepared to address these issues:
• Timeshare During the School Year. Ms. Fonseca anticipates that Mr. Medrano will seek a more equal timeshare during the school year, potentially in the range of 55/45 or even 50/50. Ms. Fonseca believes that a more equal school-year timeshare is not supported by the custody evaluation — which recommended a majority timeshare with Ms. Fonseca during school months — and is not consistent with the children's current needs and routines. In particular, a 50/50 school-year schedule would require mid-week transitions that could be disruptive for both children and would place both parents' homes on an equal footing as "primary" residences, despite the evaluator's finding that the Studio City home is the more child-adapted and conveniently located environment.
• Imputed Income. Mr. Medrano may contest the imputed income figure of $340,000 per year, either by arguing that his actual income is lower in a given year or by challenging the methodology of the forensic analysis. Ms. Fonseca submits that the analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP is based on three years of verified tax returns and financial records from Medrano Visuals, LLC, employs a well-established methodology for imputing income to a party with variable earnings, and is consistent with California Family Code section 4058(b). Ms. Fonseca is prepared to address any specific challenges to the analysis during the mediation.
• On-Location Work Transfer Provision. Mr. Medrano may resist the on-location work transfer provision, viewing it as penalizing his career choice or as an unfair restriction on his professional freedom. Ms. Fonseca emphasizes that the provision is reciprocal — it applies equally to both parents — and that it is designed not to penalize anyone's career, but to ensure that the children's care is not disrupted when a parent is unavailable for an extended period. The provision also includes a make-up time mechanism that allows the traveling parent to recoup lost parenting time within a reasonable period, ensuring that the traveling parent's overall relationship with the children is not diminished.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that the mediator, the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.), facilitate a resolution of the outstanding custody, parenting plan, and child support issues in this matter that prioritizes the best interests of Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano above all other considerations.
Ms. Fonseca approaches this mediation in good faith, with proposals that are reasonable, grounded in the comprehensive custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D., consistent with the applicable provisions of the California Family Code, and responsive to the practical realities of both parents' lives and careers. She recognizes that mediation requires compromise and flexibility, and she is prepared to listen to Mr. Medrano's concerns and to explore creative solutions that serve the children's needs.
At the same time, Ms. Fonseca is committed to ensuring that any agreement reached in this mediation provides the stability, consistency, and structure that Isabela and Mateo need — particularly during the school year — and that it includes robust mechanisms for addressing the scheduling challenges inherent in both parents' careers in the entertainment industry.
Ms. Fonseca is prepared to negotiate in good faith on all open issues and looks forward to a productive first session on November 17, 2023. She is hopeful that, with the mediator's guidance and the parties' shared commitment to their children's well-being, a comprehensive and durable agreement can be reached.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer, Lead Associate California State Bar No. 305219
By: ________
Priya Anand, Partner California State Bar No. 241087