1035-00002 · Calderwood & Harkness LLP · Mediation & Negotiation

mediation-brief-session-2.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

27 / 36 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1115 ET SEQ.

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF OF PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA — SESSION 2

In re the Custody and Support of ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO

Case No. 22STFL09847

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF

This Brief is submitted on behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") in advance of the second mediation session scheduled for December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. The purpose of this Brief is threefold: (1) to update the mediator on significant developments that have occurred since Session 1, held on November 17, 2023; (2) to respond substantively to the counter-proposal submitted by Respondent Rafael J. Medrano ("Mr. Medrano") through his counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, dated approximately November 28, 2023; and (3) to present Ms. Fonseca's revised settlement framework, which encompasses custody, timeshare, child support, and ancillary financial terms relating to the parties' two minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (age 4).

This Brief is strictly confidential and is intended solely for use in the mediation proceedings before Judge Yee. It is not to be filed with the Superior Court, disclosed to any third party, or used for any purpose other than facilitating the mediation. The mediation communications contained herein are protected under California Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1128, and no portion of this Brief is admissible in any subsequent judicial or administrative proceeding.

Counsel respectfully reminds the mediator that the court file in this matter has been sealed pursuant to the parties' stipulation and the court's order entered on July 14, 2023, in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. Both parties and their respective counsel are bound by the terms of that sealing order, and this Brief has been prepared with that obligation in mind. Ms. Fonseca is deeply committed to protecting the privacy of her children throughout this process, and she expects that all participants in Session 2 will continue to honor the confidentiality of these proceedings.

Ms. Fonseca approaches Session 2 with a sincere desire to reach a comprehensive resolution. As set forth below, her revised proposal reflects meaningful concessions from her Session 1 position, while remaining firmly grounded in the recommendations of the court-appointed custody evaluator and the best interests of Isabela and Mateo.

II. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MEDIATION SESSION 1

A. Outcome of Session 1 (November 17, 2023)

Session 1, conducted on November 17, 2023, was productive and laid important groundwork for a potential resolution, although the parties were unable to reach a complete agreement on all issues. The session lasted approximately five hours, during which the mediator met with both parties and their respective counsel in a combination of joint session and private caucus.

During Session 1, the parties reached preliminary consensus on several significant issues:

(i) Joint legal custody in principle. Both parties acknowledged that joint legal custody is appropriate and that both Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Medrano are capable, loving parents who should share in major decision-making for their children. Neither party has sought sole legal custody at any point in these proceedings.

(ii) Commitment to Ridgeview Academy. Both parties expressed their strong commitment to maintaining Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy, a well-regarded private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. The children have thrived at Ridgeview, and both parents agree that continuity of education is critical for the children's well-being and development.

(iii) Willingness to explore a parenting plan coordinator. Both parties indicated an openness to appointing a parenting plan coordinator to assist in resolving day-to-day disputes that may arise under the parenting plan, thereby reducing the likelihood of future litigation and providing the children with a more stable and predictable co-parenting environment.

(iv) Concept of a right of first refusal for childcare. Both parties agreed in principle that a right of first refusal provision should be included in the parenting plan, ensuring that each parent has the opportunity to care for the children before a third-party caregiver is engaged during the other parent's custodial time.

Notwithstanding this progress, several critical issues remained in dispute at the conclusion of Session 1:

(i) Timeshare split. Ms. Fonseca proposed an approximately 65/35 school-year timeshare during Session 1, consistent with her role as primary caretaker and the recommendations of the custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen. Mr. Medrano sought a timeshare closer to 50/50, arguing that his work schedule had become more predictable. The parties were unable to bridge this gap during Session 1.

(ii) Child support amount and direction of payment. Given the significant income disparity between the parties — Ms. Fonseca earns approximately $870,000 annually, while Mr. Medrano earns approximately $340,000 — both parties acknowledged that child support would flow from Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano under the California guideline formula. However, the parties disagreed on the appropriate amount of support, particularly as it relates to the timeshare and ancillary cost-sharing arrangements.

(iii) Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. Ms. Fonseca sought tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, given her established role as the primary decision-maker for the children's schooling. Mr. Medrano opposed this provision, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all issues, including education.

(iv) On-location work transfer provision and makeup time. The parties disagreed on the appropriate threshold for triggering a transfer of custodial time when a parent's work requires extended travel. Ms. Fonseca proposed a 14-consecutive-calendar-day threshold, while Mr. Medrano proposed 21 consecutive calendar days. The appropriate length of the make-up time window was also discussed but not resolved.

B. Mr. Medrano's Counter-Proposal Received Post-Session 1

Following Session 1, Respondent's counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP (4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, CA 91505), submitted a written counter-proposal on behalf of Mr. Medrano dated approximately November 28, 2023. Ms. Fonseca appreciates that Mr. Medrano engaged in the process by submitting a written counter-proposal, and she has reviewed its terms carefully with counsel. The key elements of Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal are as follows:

1. Timeshare. Mr. Medrano proposes a 55/45 timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor, which would result in approximately 201 overnights per year with Ms. Fonseca and approximately 164 overnights per year with Mr. Medrano. Mr. Medrano argues that his work schedule has "stabilized" and that he is now capable of providing a consistent custodial environment for the children on a near-equal basis.

2. Child support. Mr. Medrano seeks guideline child support or above-guideline support payable by Ms. Fonseca, citing the significant income disparity between the parties. At a 55/45 timeshare, the guideline amount would be substantially higher than at the 63.6/36.4 timeshare proposed by Ms. Fonseca, because the higher-earning parent with fewer overnights pays more under the California formula.

3. Tie-breaking authority. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority for Ms. Fonseca on educational decisions, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all major decisions, without exception.

4. Tuition cost-sharing. Mr. Medrano proposes an equal (50/50) split of Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, notwithstanding the significant income disparity between the parties.

5. On-location work threshold. Mr. Medrano proposes a more lenient on-location threshold of 21 consecutive calendar days rather than 14, before custodial time transfers to the other parent.

As discussed in detail below, Ms. Fonseca believes that several aspects of Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal are inconsistent with the custody evaluation, contrary to the children's best interests, and financially inequitable. Nevertheless, Ms. Fonseca has endeavored to move toward a middle ground wherever possible and has incorporated certain concessions into her revised settlement framework.

C. Minor's Counsel's Input

Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894), was appointed Minor's Counsel on June 22, 2023, pursuant to California Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of Isabela and Mateo in this proceeding. Ms. Brannigan was provided with a copy of Ms. Fonseca's parenting plan proposal on November 8, 2023, in advance of Session 1.

Since Session 1, Ms. Brannigan has communicated informally with counsel for both parties. While Ms. Brannigan has not submitted a formal written brief for the mediation, she has indicated that she supports a primary-residence arrangement with Ms. Fonseca based on the children's established routine and daily schedule, which is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen. Ms. Brannigan has also expressed a preference for the 14-day on-location threshold proposed by Ms. Fonseca, noting the children's young ages — Isabela is six years old and Mateo is four years old — and the corresponding need for stability, predictability, and continuity in their day-to-day lives. Extended absences by a custodial parent, particularly for children of this age, can be disorienting and anxiety-producing, and Ms. Brannigan's preference for the shorter threshold reflects this developmental reality.

Ms. Fonseca anticipates that Ms. Brannigan may attend a portion of Session 2, and she welcomes Minor's Counsel's participation in the mediation process. Ms. Fonseca is confident that her revised proposal is consistent with Minor's Counsel's stated priorities and, most importantly, with the best interests of Isabela and Mateo.

D. Custody Evaluation — Continued Relevance

Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. (15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 420, Encino, CA 91436), was appointed by the court as the custody evaluator in this matter. Dr. Sorensen delivered her comprehensive custody evaluation report on October 6, 2023, following extensive interviews, home visits, collateral contacts, and psychological testing. The key findings of Dr. Sorensen's report, which were discussed at length during Session 1, continue to be directly relevant to the issues pending in Session 2:

• Parental fitness. Both parents are fit and loving, and no safety concerns were identified with respect to either parent. Dr. Sorensen found no evidence of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, or any other factor that would warrant restriction of either parent's custodial time.

• Attachment and primary caretaker role. The children are well-bonded with both parents; however, Dr. Sorensen found that Isabela and Mateo have a stronger day-to-day attachment to Ms. Fonseca, who has served as the primary caretaker throughout the domestic partnership. Ms. Fonseca managed the children's daily routines, school enrollment and engagement, medical appointments, and social activities, while Mr. Medrano's contributions, though meaningful, were necessarily limited by his frequent and extended work-related travel.

• Custody recommendation. Dr. Sorensen recommended primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca, with generous timeshare to Mr. Medrano. Dr. Sorensen did not recommend a 50/50 or near-equal timeshare, and her recommendation supports a primary-residence framework in which the children's home base remains with Ms. Fonseca.

• Mr. Medrano's work schedule. Dr. Sorensen specifically noted that Mr. Medrano's variable work schedule as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, operating through his loan-out entity Medrano Visuals, LLC, creates unpredictability that is less optimal for young children. While Mr. Medrano is a talented and dedicated professional, the nature of freelance cinematography — which involves irregular project timelines, extended on-location shoots in various cities and countries, and last-minute schedule changes — is inherently incompatible with the consistency that children of Isabela's and Mateo's ages require.

• Child's preference. Isabela, who was five years old at the time of the evaluation, expressed a preference to remain primarily at her mother's home near Ridgeview Academy in Sherman Oaks. While Dr. Sorensen noted that Isabela's expressed preference was given appropriate weight in light of her age, the evaluator also considered it as one factor among many in reaching her recommendation. Mateo, who was three years old at the time of the evaluation, was too young to express a meaningful or reliable preference.

Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that the counter-proposal's request for a 55/45 timeshare is inconsistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation and with the developmental needs of the children as identified in the evaluation. Mr. Medrano's assertion that his work schedule has "stabilized" is not supported by any new evidence, and no supplemental evaluation or updated report has been prepared since the October 6, 2023 report. To the contrary, information available to Ms. Fonseca indicates that Mr. Medrano is currently in discussions regarding a feature film project that would involve on-location work in New Mexico in late January 2024, which would require approximately three to four weeks of continuous on-location presence. This further underscores the relevance of Dr. Sorensen's observations about the unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's professional commitments.

III. MS. FONSECA'S REVISED SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK

Having carefully considered Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal, the custody evaluation, Minor's Counsel's input, and the discussions that took place during Session 1, Ms. Fonseca presents the following revised settlement framework for consideration during Session 2. This revised framework represents meaningful concessions from Ms. Fonseca's Session 1 position and reflects her genuine desire to reach a fair and workable resolution in the best interests of the children.

A. Legal Custody

Ms. Fonseca continues to propose joint legal custody, consistent with the preliminary consensus reached during Session 1. Both parents are fit, competent, and invested in the children's welfare, and joint legal custody is appropriate for all major categories of decision-making.

Ms. Fonseca continues to seek tie-breaking authority on educational decisions only. This limited tie-breaking provision is warranted by Ms. Fonseca's established and well-documented role as the primary decision-maker for the children's schooling. It was Ms. Fonseca who researched and selected Ridgeview Academy (4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403) as the educational institution for both children, completed the application and enrollment process, and has served as the primary point of contact with the school's administration and faculty throughout Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment. Mr. Medrano has participated in parent-teacher conferences when his schedule permitted, but the day-to-day management of the children's educational life has been Ms. Fonseca's responsibility.

Tie-breaking authority would not diminish Mr. Medrano's voice in educational decisions. Under the proposed framework, the parties would be required to confer and attempt to reach agreement on all major educational decisions. Tie-breaking authority would apply only in the event of an impasse after good-faith consultation, and only with respect to educational matters — not healthcare, extracurricular activities, religious upbringing, or any other category of decision-making. All other major decisions would be made jointly, with a dispute resolution mechanism available through the parenting plan coordinator in the event of disagreement.

B. Physical Custody and Timeshare — Revised Proposal

Ms. Fonseca has given careful consideration to Mr. Medrano's desire for additional custodial time and has revised her proposal from Session 1 to offer Mr. Medrano meaningful additional time with the children, while maintaining a primary-residence framework that is consistent with the custody evaluation and the children's best interests.

School-year timeshare. During the approximately 295-day non-summer school year (excluding the 70-day summer break), Ms. Fonseca proposes approximately 202 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 93 overnights with Mr. Medrano.

Summer schedule. During the summer break (approximately 10 weeks / 70 days), Ms. Fonseca proposes a 50/50 split, with 35 overnights to each parent. This equal summer schedule ensures that Mr. Medrano has extended, uninterrupted time with the children during the summer months, which is particularly important for fostering the close parent-child bond that both parties value.

Combined annual totals. To reach a middle ground between the parties' positions, Ms. Fonseca is now willing to offer a combined annual figure of 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano, representing an approximate 63.6% / 36.4% division of time.

This revised timeshare represents a meaningful increase in Mr. Medrano's custodial time compared to both the current temporary custody order — which provides for a 60/40 split in favor of Ms. Fonseca, entered on May 30, 2023 — and Ms. Fonseca's Session 1 proposal, which was approximately 65/35. Ms. Fonseca has moved substantially from her initial position and believes that 63.6/36.4 strikes the appropriate balance between the children's need for stability and continuity in their primary home and Mr. Medrano's right to meaningful and frequent contact with his children.

The children's primary residence shall remain with Ms. Fonseca at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. This address is proximate to Ridgeview Academy and to the children's established network of friends, pediatrician, dentist, and extracurricular activities. Mr. Medrano currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apt. 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602, which is also within reasonable driving distance of Ridgeview Academy, ensuring that custodial transitions can be managed without disruption to the children's school attendance.

C. Holiday and Vacation Schedule

Ms. Fonseca proposes a standard alternating even/odd year rotation for major holidays and school breaks, which is widely used in family law matters and provides both parents with equal holiday time over any two-year period. Specifically:

• Thanksgiving: Alternating years, with Ms. Fonseca having Thanksgiving in even-numbered years and Mr. Medrano having Thanksgiving in odd-numbered years. The Thanksgiving holiday period shall run from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 3:00 p.m. through the following Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

• Winter break: Alternating years, with the first half of winter break (from the last day of school through December 25 at 12:00 p.m.) in one parent's custody and the second half (from December 25 at 12:00 p.m. through the day before school resumes at 6:00 p.m.) in the other parent's custody, with the halves alternating each year.

• Spring break: Alternating years, with Ms. Fonseca having spring break in odd-numbered years and Mr. Medrano having spring break in even-numbered years.

• Mother's Day: Always with Ms. Fonseca, from 9:00 a.m. Saturday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday.

• Father's Day: Always with Mr. Medrano, from 9:00 a.m. Saturday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday.

• Children's birthdays: Alternating years. In the year a parent does not have the child's birthday, that parent shall have a "birthday celebration" time block of not less than three hours on the weekend immediately preceding or following the birthday, to be agreed upon by the parties.

Specific pick-up and drop-off times, locations, and logistical arrangements for each holiday shall be set forth in Exhibit A to the final agreement, to be prepared by the parties' counsel following execution of the mediated settlement.

D. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions

Given the nature of both parties' work in the entertainment industry, clear travel provisions are essential to the children's stability and to the smooth functioning of the parenting plan.

International travel. Neither parent shall take the children outside the continental United States without a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent and the other parent's written consent. If the non-traveling parent does not consent, the traveling parent may seek a court order authorizing the travel. This provision is intended to protect both parents' rights and to ensure that international travel is planned with adequate notice and coordination. Ms. Fonseca notes that both parties hold the children's passports, which are currently in the possession of Minor's Counsel, Ms. Brannigan, pursuant to the temporary order entered on May 30, 2023.

Domestic travel outside California. Either parent may travel with the children within the continental United States, provided that a minimum of 14 days' written notice is given to the other parent, including the travel itinerary, destination, accommodations, and emergency contact information.

On-location work provision. Ms. Fonseca maintains her position, as articulated during Session 1, that 14 consecutive calendar days is the appropriate threshold for triggering a transfer of custodial time when either parent's work requires extended travel. If either parent's work obligations require travel exceeding 14 consecutive calendar days, the custodial time that would have fallen during those days shall transfer to the other parent, and the traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up time to be scheduled within 60 days following the conclusion of the work-related travel, at mutually convenient times, with the assistance of the parenting plan coordinator if necessary.

Ms. Fonseca opposes Mr. Medrano's proposed 21-day threshold for the following reasons:

• Children's ages. Isabela is six years old and Mateo is four years old. Children of this age have limited capacity to manage extended separations from a custodial parent without experiencing distress, anxiety, and disruption to their routines. A 21-day absence — three full weeks — is a substantial period for a young child and would effectively mean that a parent could be entirely absent for three consecutive weeks during their custodial time without any adjustment to the schedule.

• Mr. Medrano's work history. The nature of Mr. Medrano's freelance work as a cinematographer and director of photography frequently involves multi-week on-location shoots. The seven-week shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia in early 2023 — which was a significant catalyst for the initiation of these proceedings — illustrates the practical impact of extended work-related absences. A 21-day threshold would allow Mr. Medrano to be on location for up to 20 consecutive days during his custodial time without triggering any schedule adjustment, potentially resulting in the children being cared for by third parties for extended periods during what is nominally Mr. Medrano's parenting time.

• Minor's Counsel's position. As noted above, Ms. Brannigan has expressed support for the 14-day threshold, consistent with her assessment of the children's developmental needs.

• Balance and fairness. The 14-day threshold applies equally to both parties. Ms. Fonseca's own work at Luminos Entertainment Group occasionally requires travel, and she would be subject to the same provision. The threshold is not punitive; it simply ensures that custodial time is spent with the custodial parent, not with substitute caregivers.

E. Right of First Refusal

Consistent with the preliminary consensus reached during Session 1, Ms. Fonseca proposes that when a parent is unavailable for more than 8 consecutive hours during their custodial time (excluding the children's normal sleeping hours), the other parent shall have the right of first refusal for childcare before a third-party caregiver is engaged. The unavailable parent shall provide notice to the other parent as soon as practicable, and in no event less than 24 hours in advance except in the case of an emergency. If the other parent is unable or unwilling to exercise the right of first refusal, the custodial parent may arrange for third-party childcare without further obligation.

The specific terms and procedures for exercising the right of first refusal, including notice requirements, response times, and pick-up/drop-off logistics, shall be set forth in Exhibit B to the final agreement.

F. Parenting Plan Coordinator

Both parties agreed in principle during Session 1 to the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist in resolving day-to-day disputes that may arise under the parenting plan. The use of a parenting plan coordinator is increasingly common in family law matters involving high-conflict or high-stakes custody arrangements, and Ms. Fonseca believes that the appointment of a qualified coordinator will serve the children's interests by reducing parental conflict and providing a structured mechanism for resolving disagreements without resorting to court intervention.

Ms. Fonseca proposes Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, CA 90024, as the parenting plan coordinator. Dr. Ingalls has extensive experience working with families in custody disputes, including families in the entertainment industry, and has served as a parenting plan coordinator in numerous cases in Los Angeles County. Ms. Fonseca has confirmed Dr. Ingalls's availability and willingness to serve in this capacity.

Ms. Fonseca proposes that the costs of the parenting plan coordinator be split equally (50/50) between the parties, regardless of which party initiates the consultation. This equal cost-sharing arrangement ensures that neither party is deterred from seeking the coordinator's assistance when a dispute arises, and it reflects the shared responsibility of both parents for the smooth functioning of the co-parenting relationship.

Ms. Fonseca awaits Mr. Medrano's response regarding the selection of Dr. Ingalls and welcomes the opportunity to discuss alternative candidates if Mr. Medrano has concerns about this selection.

IV. CHILD SUPPORT — GUIDELINE ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED DEVIATION

A. Income of the Parties

A child support determination under the California guideline formula requires an accurate assessment of both parties' gross monthly incomes. The parties' respective incomes are as follows:

Marguerite D. Fonseca. Ms. Fonseca is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Luminos"), headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505. Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation consists of the following components:

Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income is therefore $870,000 ÷ 12 = $72,500 per month. The three-year average for Ms. Fonseca's discretionary bonus is used to smooth year-to-year variability, and her RSU vesting schedule is based on grant-date awards that vest ratably over four years, with $175,000 representing the annualized value of currently vesting grants.

Rafael J. Medrano. Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, operating through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Mr. Medrano's income is inherently variable from year to year, depending on the number and scope of projects he books. The parties' forensic income analyst, Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP (333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90071), conducted a comprehensive forensic income analysis and determined that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is $340,000. This analysis considered Mr. Medrano's business income as reported on the Medrano Visuals, LLC tax returns (Form 1065), Mr. Medrano's personal tax returns (Form 1040), distributions from the LLC, and Mr. Medrano's work history and professional credentials.

Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income is therefore $340,000 ÷ 12 ≈ $28,333 per month. Ms. Fonseca submits that imputation of income at this level is appropriate under California Family Code section 4058(b), which permits the court to consider a parent's earning capacity in light of the parent's ability, opportunity, and willingness to earn. Mr. Medrano is a highly skilled and credentialed cinematographer with a strong professional reputation and consistent work history in the entertainment industry. His earning capacity is commensurate with the three-year average income figure.

Combined gross monthly income: $72,500 + $28,333 = $100,833 per month.

B. Guideline Calculation (DissoMaster)

Under the California child support guideline formula set forth in California Family Code sections 4055 et seq., the guideline child support amount is determined based on the parties' respective incomes, the number of children, the applicable tax filing status and deductions, and the percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children. The guideline formula is expressed as:

CS = K [HN – (H%)(TN)]

where "K" is an income allocation factor, "HN" is the high earner's net disposable income, "H%" is the approximate percentage of time the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children, and "TN" is the total net monthly disposable income of both parties.

Using the DissoMaster software program — the standard tool employed by California family law courts for guideline support calculations — and inputting the parties' gross monthly incomes, the proposed timeshare of 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano (232/133 overnights), applicable tax rates, standard deductions, and other relevant parameters, the guideline child support amount for two children is calculated as follows:

Guideline child support amount: $1,274 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano.

Despite Ms. Fonseca's significantly higher income, the guideline amount is moderated by her majority timeshare. Under the California formula, the higher-earning parent who also has majority custody pays less in child support than a higher-earning parent with minority custody, because the custodial parent is already bearing a disproportionate share of the children's direct costs through the provision of housing, food, utilities, and other daily necessities during the majority of the children's time. If Mr. Medrano's proposed 55/45 timeshare were adopted, the guideline amount payable by Ms. Fonseca would be substantially higher, because Ms. Fonseca would have fewer overnights while retaining the same income.

The complete DissoMaster calculation printout has been prepared and is available for the mediator's review upon request. Counsel is prepared to bring the printout to Session 2.

C. Ms. Fonseca's Proposed Deviation from Guideline

Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties agree to child support in the amount of $1,100 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This represents a deviation of $174 per month below the guideline amount ($1,274 − $1,100 = $174), which is a modest deviation of approximately 13.7%.

California Family Code section 4057(b) permits deviation from the guideline amount where the parties stipulate to a different amount and the court finds that the stipulated amount is not unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances. A stipulated deviation is routinely approved when it is supported by a rational basis and when the overall financial arrangement adequately provides for the children's needs. Ms. Fonseca submits that the proposed deviation is justified for the following reasons:

1. Offsetting extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement. As set forth in Section V.B below, Ms. Fonseca proposes that Mr. Medrano bear 60% of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (with Ms. Fonseca bearing 40%), up to a cap of $1,500 per child per quarter. This disproportionately favorable arrangement for Mr. Medrano provides a direct financial offset to the $174/month reduction in monthly support. When the total economic package is considered — including monthly support, tuition sharing, extracurricular sharing, and healthcare sharing — Mr. Medrano receives a comprehensive and fair financial arrangement that fully supports his ability to provide for the children during his custodial time.

2. Ms. Fonseca's disproportionate share of educational costs. As discussed in Section V.A below, Ms. Fonseca proposes to bear 70% of the children's Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, which total $59,200 per year. Ms. Fonseca's 70% share amounts to $41,440 per year, or approximately $3,453 per month. This substantial ongoing financial commitment by Ms. Fonseca benefits the children directly and indirectly benefits Mr. Medrano by reducing his share of tuition to $17,760 per year, or approximately $1,480 per month.

3. Modest magnitude of the deviation. The proposed deviation is $174 per month, which amounts to $2,088 per year. In the context of the parties' combined gross annual income of approximately $1,210,000 and the comprehensive financial terms being proposed, this is a modest adjustment that does not materially affect Mr. Medrano's financial well-being or his ability to provide for the children.

D. Response to Mr. Medrano's Support Position

Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal seeks guideline child support or above-guideline support. Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that this position is unreasonable in light of the comprehensive financial terms being proposed.

First, Mr. Medrano's support calculation appears to be premised on his proposed 55/45 timeshare. At that timeshare, the guideline amount would be substantially higher than $1,274 per month, because the higher-income parent (Ms. Fonseca) would have fewer overnights. However, as set forth above and throughout this Brief, the appropriate timeshare is 63.6/36.4, not 55/45. The custody evaluation, Minor's Counsel's input, and the children's established routine all support the 63.6/36.4 timeshare, and the support calculation should reflect that timeshare.

Second, even at the agreed timeshare of 63.6/36.4, Ms. Fonseca's proposed figure of $1,100 per month, combined with the accompanying cost-sharing arrangements for tuition, extracurricular activities, and healthcare, represents a fair and comprehensive financial package for Mr. Medrano. When all financial flows are considered, Mr. Medrano receives substantial financial support that is commensurate with the children's needs and the parties' respective abilities to contribute.

Ms. Fonseca is not seeking to minimize her financial obligations to her children. She is, and has always been, the children's primary financial provider, and she is prepared to continue bearing the majority of the children's expenses. The proposed $1,100 per month, combined with the cost-sharing terms, ensures that the children's needs are fully met while respecting the legitimate interests of both parents.

V. EDUCATION, EXTRACURRICULAR, AND HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING

A. Education Costs — Ridgeview Academy Tuition

Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Both parties have expressed their commitment to maintaining the children's enrollment at Ridgeview, and this commitment was one of the areas of consensus reached during Session 1. The current annual tuition costs are as follows:

Ms. Fonseca proposes that tuition costs be split 70% to Ms. Fonseca / 30% to Mr. Medrano, as follows:

This 70/30 split is roughly proportionate to the parties' respective shares of combined gross monthly income. Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income of $72,500 represents approximately 71.9% of the parties' combined gross monthly income of $100,833, while Mr. Medrano's gross monthly income of $28,333 represents approximately 28.1%. The proposed 70/30 split closely tracks these income percentages, rounding modestly in Mr. Medrano's favor.

Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal of a 50/50 tuition split is inequitable and would impose a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Medrano himself. Under a 50/50 split, each parent would pay approximately $29,600 per year in tuition. For Ms. Fonseca, $29,600 represents approximately 3.4% of her gross annual income of $870,000. For Mr. Medrano, $29,600 represents approximately 8.7% of his gross annual income of $340,000 — more than 2.5 times the proportionate burden borne by Ms. Fonseca. This disproportionate burden on Mr. Medrano would ultimately be to the children's detriment, as it would constrain Mr. Medrano's financial ability to provide for the children's needs during his custodial time and could create resentment or financial stress that negatively affects the co-parenting relationship.

Ms. Fonseca submits that an income-proportionate tuition split is both equitable and in the children's best interests, and she urges the mediator to assist the parties in reaching agreement on this basis.

B. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activities

Ms. Fonseca proposes that extracurricular and enrichment activity costs be split 60% to Mr. Medrano / 40% to Ms. Fonseca for activities costing up to $1,500 per child per quarter. Any cost above the $1,500 per child per quarter cap shall require the mutual written consent of both parents before enrollment, ensuring that neither parent can unilaterally commit the other to extracurricular expenses beyond a reasonable threshold.

This allocation, which is disproportionately favorable to Mr. Medrano, is the offsetting consideration for the $174 per month deviation below guideline child support discussed in Section IV.C above. In effect, Mr. Medrano bears a larger share of extracurricular costs but receives a modestly reduced monthly support payment. This arrangement may provide practical advantages for Mr. Medrano, including greater direct involvement in funding the children's enrichment activities and potential tax or financial planning benefits.

The total potential quarterly extracurricular cost at the cap is $1,500 per child × 2 children = $3,000 per quarter, or $12,000 per year. At the proposed 60/40 split, the maximum annual shares would be:

Both Isabela and Mateo are currently enrolled in age-appropriate extracurricular activities, including swimming lessons and an art enrichment program for Isabela and a toddler music class for Mateo. Current quarterly costs are well within the proposed $1,500 per child per quarter cap, and Ms. Fonseca anticipates that costs will remain within this range for the foreseeable future, subject to the children's evolving interests and developmental needs.

C. Healthcare. The children are currently covered, and will continue to be covered, under Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The plan is administered by Veridian Health Insurance Co. and provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for the children. Ms. Fonseca bears the premium cost as part of her employment benefits, and no additional premium contribution is sought from Mr. Medrano.

For unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses — i.e., expenses not covered by the Veridian Health Insurance plan — Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70% Fonseca / 30% Medrano split, consistent with the income-proportionate framework applied to tuition and other shared expenses. This includes, without limitation, co-pays, deductibles, orthodontic treatment, prescription medications, vision care (including corrective lenses), and any mental health or therapeutic services recommended by the children's healthcare providers.

Each parent shall submit documentation of unreimbursed healthcare expenses to the other parent within 30 days of incurring the expense, together with proof of payment and any applicable insurance explanation of benefits. The non-incurring parent shall reimburse their proportionate share within 30 days of receipt of the documentation.

VI. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION PROVISIONS

Ms. Fonseca proposes that the child support amount be subject to review on the anniversary of the entry of the order, or at any time upon a material change in circumstances. For purposes of this provision, a "material change in circumstances" shall be defined as:

(a) A change in either party's gross annual income exceeding 15% (whether an increase or a decrease), sustained over a period of at least six months; or

(b) A change in the timeshare arrangement exceeding 10% of the total annual overnights (i.e., a change of more than 36.5 overnights per year).

This modification provision protects both parties against future uncertainties. If Mr. Medrano's freelance income increases substantially — as may well occur given his talent and professional trajectory — the child support figure can be revisited downward or eliminated. Conversely, if Mr. Medrano's income decreases or if Ms. Fonseca's compensation changes materially, the support figure can be adjusted accordingly. The 15% income threshold ensures that minor fluctuations in either party's income do not trigger unnecessary renegotiation, while the 10% timeshare threshold provides a meaningful standard for custodial modifications.

Either party may initiate a review by providing written notice to the other party, together with documentation supporting the claimed material change. If the parties are unable to agree on a modified support figure within 60 days of the notice, either party may seek modification through the court in accordance with applicable law.

VII. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT

Ms. Fonseca proposes the inclusion of a mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement clause in any final agreement reached through this mediation. Both parties are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, one of the major entertainment companies in Los Angeles. Mr. Medrano is a respected freelance cinematographer and director of photography whose professional reputation is critical to his ability to secure work and maintain his earning capacity. The nature of the entertainment industry is such that personal information, particularly information relating to family law disputes, can be disseminated widely and rapidly through industry channels and media, with potentially damaging consequences for both parties' careers and, most importantly, for the children's well-being and privacy.

Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms:

(a) Confidentiality. Neither party shall disclose the financial terms of the agreement, the contents of the custody evaluation, or the substance of the mediation proceedings to any third party, except as necessary to legal counsel, tax advisors, financial planners, or as required by court order or applicable law. Each party shall instruct their respective advisors and agents of the confidentiality obligations set forth herein.

(b) Non-disparagement. Neither party shall make disparaging, derogatory, or defamatory statements about the other party to third parties, including but not limited to friends, family members, colleagues, media representatives, or on social media platforms. This provision does not restrict either party's ability to communicate truthfully and in good faith with legal counsel, mental health professionals, or the parenting plan coordinator regarding matters arising under the parenting plan.

The children's privacy interests are paramount. The court has already granted the parties' stipulation to seal the court file in this matter, reflecting both parties' shared commitment to shielding Isabela and Mateo from the public aspects of this dispute. The proposed confidentiality and non-disparagement clause reinforces that commitment and extends it to the terms of the mediated agreement itself.

VIII. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 2

For the mediator's convenience, Ms. Fonseca respectfully summarizes the principal issues that remain in dispute and that should be the focus of discussion during Session 2:

1. Timeshare percentage. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 63.6/36.4 timeshare (232/133 overnights); Mr. Medrano seeks 55/45 (approximately 201/164 overnights). The custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen supports a majority-time arrangement with Ms. Fonseca, and Minor's Counsel, Ms. Brannigan, has expressed support for a primary-residence framework. Ms. Fonseca has already moved from her Session 1 position of approximately 65/35 and believes that 63.6/36.4 represents a fair and evidence-based compromise. Further movement by Ms. Fonseca is limited given the evaluator's recommendation and the children's developmental needs.

2. Child support amount. Ms. Fonseca proposes $1,100 per month (a deviation of $174 below the guideline amount of $1,274); Mr. Medrano seeks guideline or above-guideline support. The extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement, in which Mr. Medrano bears 60% of extracurricular costs, is the principal offsetting factor justifying the deviation. Ms. Fonseca submits that the total economic package — monthly support, tuition sharing, extracurricular sharing, and healthcare sharing — is fair and comprehensive.

3. Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. Ms. Fonseca seeks tie-breaking authority on educational decisions only, based on her established role as the primary educational decision-maker and the supporting findings of the custody evaluation. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all issues. This issue may benefit from the mediator's guidance, as it involves questions of principle that are difficult to resolve through numerical compromise.

4. On-location work threshold. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 14-consecutive-calendar-day threshold for triggering custodial time transfers during extended work-related travel; Mr. Medrano proposes 21 consecutive calendar days. Minor's Counsel supports the 14-day threshold. The children's ages and Mr. Medrano's demonstrated pattern of multi-week on-location work support the shorter threshold.

5. Tuition cost-sharing ratio. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70/30 split, which is proportionate to the parties' respective incomes; Mr. Medrano proposes a 50/50 split, which would impose a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Medrano and is inconsistent with the income-proportionate framework applied to other shared expenses.

6. Parenting plan coordinator selection. Ms. Fonseca has proposed Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT, of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, as the parenting plan coordinator. Ms. Fonseca awaits Mr. Medrano's response regarding this selection and is open to discussing alternative candidates if Mr. Medrano has objections.

Ms. Fonseca is hopeful that, with the mediator's skilled assistance, the parties can narrow or resolve these remaining issues during Session 2.

IX. CONCLUSION

Ms. Fonseca's revised settlement framework, as set forth in this Brief, represents a genuine and good-faith effort to bridge the gap between the parties' positions on the issues that remain in dispute following Session 1. The proposed terms are grounded in the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen, the guideline child support calculations under the California Family Code, the input of Minor's Counsel, and — above all — the best interests of Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.

Ms. Fonseca has moved meaningfully from her Session 1 position, increasing Mr. Medrano's proposed custodial time, agreeing to a 50/50 summer schedule, and proposing a comprehensive financial framework that addresses tuition, extracurricular costs, healthcare, and monthly child support in an integrated and equitable manner. She has done so because she believes that a mediated resolution — rather than protracted litigation — is in the best interests of her children and of both parties.

Ms. Fonseca is committed to the mediation process and approaches Session 2 with flexibility, good faith, and a genuine desire to reach a comprehensive agreement that provides Isabela and Mateo with the stability, security, and loving relationship with both parents that they deserve. Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests the mediator's assistance in facilitating a productive dialogue during Session 2 and in guiding the parties toward a resolution that serves the children's best interests.

Counsel for Ms. Fonseca remains available in advance of Session 2 to discuss any questions the mediator may have, to provide supplemental information or documentation, or to coordinate with counsel for Mr. Medrano and Minor's Counsel on any logistical matters relating to the session.

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Devon Archer, Lead Associate California State Bar No. 312487

Priya Anand, Partner California State Bar No. 245103

On Behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca

Date: December 8, 2023

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This document is confidential and prepared solely for use in mediation proceedings before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 1115–1128. It is inadmissible in any subsequent judicial, administrative, or arbitral proceedings. This document may not be filed with any court or disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of all parties to the mediation. C&H Matter No. 1035-00002.

Prepared by:

777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Attorneys of Record:

Devon Archer, Lead Associate

Nadia Petrov, Associate

On Behalf of:	Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, Petitioner
Mediator:	Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.)

Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services

801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Date of Brief:	December 8, 2023
Date of Session 2:	December 15, 2023
C&H Matter No.:	1035-00002
Overnights	Percentage
Ms. Fonseca	232	63.6%
Mr. Medrano	133	36.4%
Total	365	100.0%
Component	Annual Amount
Base salary	$485,000
Average annual discretionary bonus (3-year average)	$210,000
Annual RSU vesting (Luminos equity plan)	$175,000
Total annual compensation	$870,000
Child	Date of Birth	Current Grade	Annual Tuition
Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano	February 11, 2017	First Grade	$32,400
Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano	August 29, 2019	Pre-Kindergarten	$26,800
Total	$59,200
Ms. Fonseca (70%)	Mr. Medrano (30%)
Isabela	$22,680	$9,720
Mateo	$18,760	$8,040
Total	$41,440	$17,760

Annual Share (at cap)

Mr. Medrano (60%)	$7,200
Ms. Fonseca (40%)	$4,800
Total	$12,000

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1115 ET SEQ.
CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF OF PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA — SESSION 2
In re the Custody and Support of ISABELA LUZ FONSECA-MEDRANO and MATEO ELÍAS FONSECA-MEDRANO
Case No. 22STFL09847
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF
This Brief is submitted on behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") in advance of the second mediation session scheduled for December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. The purpose of this Brief is threefold: (1) to update the mediator on significant developments that have occurred since Session 1, held on November 17, 2023; (2) to respond substantively to the counter-proposal submitted by Respondent Rafael J. Medrano ("Mr. Medrano") through his counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, dated approximately November 28, 2023; and (3) to present Ms. Fonseca's revised settlement framework, which encompasses custody, timeshare, child support, and ancillary financial terms relating to the parties' two minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (age 4).
This Brief is strictly confidential and is intended solely for use in the mediation proceedings before Judge Yee. It is not to be filed with the Superior Court, disclosed to any third party, or used for any purpose other than facilitating the mediation. The mediation communications contained herein are protected under California Evidence Code sections 1115 through 1128, and no portion of this Brief is admissible in any subsequent judicial or administrative proceeding.
Counsel respectfully reminds the mediator that the court file in this matter has been sealed pursuant to the parties' stipulation and the court's order entered on July 14, 2023, in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. Both parties and their respective counsel are bound by the terms of that sealing order, and this Brief has been prepared with that obligation in mind. Ms. Fonseca is deeply committed to protecting the privacy of her children throughout this process, and she expects that all participants in Session 2 will continue to honor the confidentiality of these proceedings.
Ms. Fonseca approaches Session 2 with a sincere desire to reach a comprehensive resolution. As set forth below, her revised proposal reflects meaningful concessions from her Session 1 position, while remaining firmly grounded in the recommendations of the court-appointed custody evaluator and the best interests of Isabela and Mateo.
II. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MEDIATION SESSION 1
A. Outcome of Session 1 (November 17, 2023)
Session 1, conducted on November 17, 2023, was productive and laid important groundwork for a potential resolution, although the parties were unable to reach a complete agreement on all issues. The session lasted approximately five hours, during which the mediator met with both parties and their respective counsel in a combination of joint session and private caucus.
During Session 1, the parties reached preliminary consensus on several significant issues:
(i) Joint legal custody in principle. Both parties acknowledged that joint legal custody is appropriate and that both Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Medrano are capable, loving parents who should share in major decision-making for their children. Neither party has sought sole legal custody at any point in these proceedings.
(ii) Commitment to Ridgeview Academy. Both parties expressed their strong commitment to maintaining Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment at Ridgeview Academy, a well-regarded private school located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. The children have thrived at Ridgeview, and both parents agree that continuity of education is critical for the children's well-being and development.
(iii) Willingness to explore a parenting plan coordinator. Both parties indicated an openness to appointing a parenting plan coordinator to assist in resolving day-to-day disputes that may arise under the parenting plan, thereby reducing the likelihood of future litigation and providing the children with a more stable and predictable co-parenting environment.
(iv) Concept of a right of first refusal for childcare. Both parties agreed in principle that a right of first refusal provision should be included in the parenting plan, ensuring that each parent has the opportunity to care for the children before a third-party caregiver is engaged during the other parent's custodial time.
Notwithstanding this progress, several critical issues remained in dispute at the conclusion of Session 1:
(i) Timeshare split. Ms. Fonseca proposed an approximately 65/35 school-year timeshare during Session 1, consistent with her role as primary caretaker and the recommendations of the custody evaluator, Dr. Elena V. Sorensen. Mr. Medrano sought a timeshare closer to 50/50, arguing that his work schedule had become more predictable. The parties were unable to bridge this gap during Session 1.
(ii) Child support amount and direction of payment. Given the significant income disparity between the parties — Ms. Fonseca earns approximately $870,000 annually, while Mr. Medrano earns approximately $340,000 — both parties acknowledged that child support would flow from Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano under the California guideline formula. However, the parties disagreed on the appropriate amount of support, particularly as it relates to the timeshare and ancillary cost-sharing arrangements.
(iii) Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. Ms. Fonseca sought tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, given her established role as the primary decision-maker for the children's schooling. Mr. Medrano opposed this provision, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all issues, including education.
(iv) On-location work transfer provision and makeup time. The parties disagreed on the appropriate threshold for triggering a transfer of custodial time when a parent's work requires extended travel. Ms. Fonseca proposed a 14-consecutive-calendar-day threshold, while Mr. Medrano proposed 21 consecutive calendar days. The appropriate length of the make-up time window was also discussed but not resolved.
B. Mr. Medrano's Counter-Proposal Received Post-Session 1
Following Session 1, Respondent's counsel, Gwendolyn R. Kwan of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP (4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, CA 91505), submitted a written counter-proposal on behalf of Mr. Medrano dated approximately November 28, 2023. Ms. Fonseca appreciates that Mr. Medrano engaged in the process by submitting a written counter-proposal, and she has reviewed its terms carefully with counsel. The key elements of Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal are as follows:
1.  Timeshare. Mr. Medrano proposes a 55/45 timeshare in Ms. Fonseca's favor, which would result in approximately 201 overnights per year with Ms. Fonseca and approximately 164 overnights per year with Mr. Medrano. Mr. Medrano argues that his work schedule has "stabilized" and that he is now capable of providing a consistent custodial environment for the children on a near-equal basis.
2.  Child support. Mr. Medrano seeks guideline child support or above-guideline support payable by Ms. Fonseca, citing the significant income disparity between the parties. At a 55/45 timeshare, the guideline amount would be substantially higher than at the 63.6/36.4 timeshare proposed by Ms. Fonseca, because the higher-earning parent with fewer overnights pays more under the California formula.
3.  Tie-breaking authority. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority for Ms. Fonseca on educational decisions, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all major decisions, without exception.
4.  Tuition cost-sharing. Mr. Medrano proposes an equal (50/50) split of Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, notwithstanding the significant income disparity between the parties.
5.  On-location work threshold. Mr. Medrano proposes a more lenient on-location threshold of 21 consecutive calendar days rather than 14, before custodial time transfers to the other parent.
As discussed in detail below, Ms. Fonseca believes that several aspects of Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal are inconsistent with the custody evaluation, contrary to the children's best interests, and financially inequitable. Nevertheless, Ms. Fonseca has endeavored to move toward a middle ground wherever possible and has incorporated certain concessions into her revised settlement framework.
C. Minor's Counsel's Input
Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894), was appointed Minor's Counsel on June 22, 2023, pursuant to California Family Code section 3150, to represent the interests of Isabela and Mateo in this proceeding. Ms. Brannigan was provided with a copy of Ms. Fonseca's parenting plan proposal on November 8, 2023, in advance of Session 1.
Since Session 1, Ms. Brannigan has communicated informally with counsel for both parties. While Ms. Brannigan has not submitted a formal written brief for the mediation, she has indicated that she supports a primary-residence arrangement with Ms. Fonseca based on the children's established routine and daily schedule, which is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen. Ms. Brannigan has also expressed a preference for the 14-day on-location threshold proposed by Ms. Fonseca, noting the children's young ages — Isabela is six years old and Mateo is four years old — and the corresponding need for stability, predictability, and continuity in their day-to-day lives. Extended absences by a custodial parent, particularly for children of this age, can be disorienting and anxiety-producing, and Ms. Brannigan's preference for the shorter threshold reflects this developmental reality.
Ms. Fonseca anticipates that Ms. Brannigan may attend a portion of Session 2, and she welcomes Minor's Counsel's participation in the mediation process. Ms. Fonseca is confident that her revised proposal is consistent with Minor's Counsel's stated priorities and, most importantly, with the best interests of Isabela and Mateo.
D. Custody Evaluation — Continued Relevance
Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. (15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 420, Encino, CA 91436), was appointed by the court as the custody evaluator in this matter. Dr. Sorensen delivered her comprehensive custody evaluation report on October 6, 2023, following extensive interviews, home visits, collateral contacts, and psychological testing. The key findings of Dr. Sorensen's report, which were discussed at length during Session 1, continue to be directly relevant to the issues pending in Session 2:
•  Parental fitness. Both parents are fit and loving, and no safety concerns were identified with respect to either parent. Dr. Sorensen found no evidence of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, or any other factor that would warrant restriction of either parent's custodial time.
•  Attachment and primary caretaker role. The children are well-bonded with both parents; however, Dr. Sorensen found that Isabela and Mateo have a stronger day-to-day attachment to Ms. Fonseca, who has served as the primary caretaker throughout the domestic partnership. Ms. Fonseca managed the children's daily routines, school enrollment and engagement, medical appointments, and social activities, while Mr. Medrano's contributions, though meaningful, were necessarily limited by his frequent and extended work-related travel.
•  Custody recommendation. Dr. Sorensen recommended primary physical custody with Ms. Fonseca, with generous timeshare to Mr. Medrano. Dr. Sorensen did not recommend a 50/50 or near-equal timeshare, and her recommendation supports a primary-residence framework in which the children's home base remains with Ms. Fonseca.
•  Mr. Medrano's work schedule. Dr. Sorensen specifically noted that Mr. Medrano's variable work schedule as a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, operating through his loan-out entity Medrano Visuals, LLC, creates unpredictability that is less optimal for young children. While Mr. Medrano is a talented and dedicated professional, the nature of freelance cinematography — which involves irregular project timelines, extended on-location shoots in various cities and countries, and last-minute schedule changes — is inherently incompatible with the consistency that children of Isabela's and Mateo's ages require.
•  Child's preference. Isabela, who was five years old at the time of the evaluation, expressed a preference to remain primarily at her mother's home near Ridgeview Academy in Sherman Oaks. While Dr. Sorensen noted that Isabela's expressed preference was given appropriate weight in light of her age, the evaluator also considered it as one factor among many in reaching her recommendation. Mateo, who was three years old at the time of the evaluation, was too young to express a meaningful or reliable preference.
Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that the counter-proposal's request for a 55/45 timeshare is inconsistent with Dr. Sorensen's recommendation and with the developmental needs of the children as identified in the evaluation. Mr. Medrano's assertion that his work schedule has "stabilized" is not supported by any new evidence, and no supplemental evaluation or updated report has been prepared since the October 6, 2023 report. To the contrary, information available to Ms. Fonseca indicates that Mr. Medrano is currently in discussions regarding a feature film project that would involve on-location work in New Mexico in late January 2024, which would require approximately three to four weeks of continuous on-location presence. This further underscores the relevance of Dr. Sorensen's observations about the unpredictability of Mr. Medrano's professional commitments.
III. MS. FONSECA'S REVISED SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK
Having carefully considered Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal, the custody evaluation, Minor's Counsel's input, and the discussions that took place during Session 1, Ms. Fonseca presents the following revised settlement framework for consideration during Session 2. This revised framework represents meaningful concessions from Ms. Fonseca's Session 1 position and reflects her genuine desire to reach a fair and workable resolution in the best interests of the children.
A. Legal Custody
Ms. Fonseca continues to propose joint legal custody, consistent with the preliminary consensus reached during Session 1. Both parents are fit, competent, and invested in the children's welfare, and joint legal custody is appropriate for all major categories of decision-making.
Ms. Fonseca continues to seek tie-breaking authority on educational decisions only. This limited tie-breaking provision is warranted by Ms. Fonseca's established and well-documented role as the primary decision-maker for the children's schooling. It was Ms. Fonseca who researched and selected Ridgeview Academy (4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403) as the educational institution for both children, completed the application and enrollment process, and has served as the primary point of contact with the school's administration and faculty throughout Isabela's and Mateo's enrollment. Mr. Medrano has participated in parent-teacher conferences when his schedule permitted, but the day-to-day management of the children's educational life has been Ms. Fonseca's responsibility.
Tie-breaking authority would not diminish Mr. Medrano's voice in educational decisions. Under the proposed framework, the parties would be required to confer and attempt to reach agreement on all major educational decisions. Tie-breaking authority would apply only in the event of an impasse after good-faith consultation, and only with respect to educational matters — not healthcare, extracurricular activities, religious upbringing, or any other category of decision-making. All other major decisions would be made jointly, with a dispute resolution mechanism available through the parenting plan coordinator in the event of disagreement.
B. Physical Custody and Timeshare — Revised Proposal
Ms. Fonseca has given careful consideration to Mr. Medrano's desire for additional custodial time and has revised her proposal from Session 1 to offer Mr. Medrano meaningful additional time with the children, while maintaining a primary-residence framework that is consistent with the custody evaluation and the children's best interests.
School-year timeshare. During the approximately 295-day non-summer school year (excluding the 70-day summer break), Ms. Fonseca proposes approximately 202 overnights with Ms. Fonseca and 93 overnights with Mr. Medrano.
Summer schedule. During the summer break (approximately 10 weeks / 70 days), Ms. Fonseca proposes a 50/50 split, with 35 overnights to each parent. This equal summer schedule ensures that Mr. Medrano has extended, uninterrupted time with the children during the summer months, which is particularly important for fostering the close parent-child bond that both parties value.
Combined annual totals. To reach a middle ground between the parties' positions, Ms. Fonseca is now willing to offer a combined annual figure of 232 overnights to Ms. Fonseca and 133 overnights to Mr. Medrano, representing an approximate 63.6% / 36.4% division of time.
This revised timeshare represents a meaningful increase in Mr. Medrano's custodial time compared to both the current temporary custody order — which provides for a 60/40 split in favor of Ms. Fonseca, entered on May 30, 2023 — and Ms. Fonseca's Session 1 proposal, which was approximately 65/35. Ms. Fonseca has moved substantially from her initial position and believes that 63.6/36.4 strikes the appropriate balance between the children's need for stability and continuity in their primary home and Mr. Medrano's right to meaningful and frequent contact with his children.
The children's primary residence shall remain with Ms. Fonseca at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604. This address is proximate to Ridgeview Academy and to the children's established network of friends, pediatrician, dentist, and extracurricular activities. Mr. Medrano currently resides at 609 Moorpark Street, Apt. 12, North Hollywood, CA 91602, which is also within reasonable driving distance of Ridgeview Academy, ensuring that custodial transitions can be managed without disruption to the children's school attendance.
C. Holiday and Vacation Schedule
Ms. Fonseca proposes a standard alternating even/odd year rotation for major holidays and school breaks, which is widely used in family law matters and provides both parents with equal holiday time over any two-year period. Specifically:
•  Thanksgiving: Alternating years, with Ms. Fonseca having Thanksgiving in even-numbered years and Mr. Medrano having Thanksgiving in odd-numbered years. The Thanksgiving holiday period shall run from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 3:00 p.m. through the following Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
•  Winter break: Alternating years, with the first half of winter break (from the last day of school through December 25 at 12:00 p.m.) in one parent's custody and the second half (from December 25 at 12:00 p.m. through the day before school resumes at 6:00 p.m.) in the other parent's custody, with the halves alternating each year.
•  Spring break: Alternating years, with Ms. Fonseca having spring break in odd-numbered years and Mr. Medrano having spring break in even-numbered years.
•  Mother's Day: Always with Ms. Fonseca, from 9:00 a.m. Saturday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday.
•  Father's Day: Always with Mr. Medrano, from 9:00 a.m. Saturday through 6:00 p.m. Sunday.
•  Children's birthdays: Alternating years. In the year a parent does not have the child's birthday, that parent shall have a "birthday celebration" time block of not less than three hours on the weekend immediately preceding or following the birthday, to be agreed upon by the parties.
Specific pick-up and drop-off times, locations, and logistical arrangements for each holiday shall be set forth in Exhibit A to the final agreement, to be prepared by the parties' counsel following execution of the mediated settlement.
D. Travel and On-Location Work Provisions
Given the nature of both parties' work in the entertainment industry, clear travel provisions are essential to the children's stability and to the smooth functioning of the parenting plan.
International travel. Neither parent shall take the children outside the continental United States without a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent and the other parent's written consent. If the non-traveling parent does not consent, the traveling parent may seek a court order authorizing the travel. This provision is intended to protect both parents' rights and to ensure that international travel is planned with adequate notice and coordination. Ms. Fonseca notes that both parties hold the children's passports, which are currently in the possession of Minor's Counsel, Ms. Brannigan, pursuant to the temporary order entered on May 30, 2023.
Domestic travel outside California. Either parent may travel with the children within the continental United States, provided that a minimum of 14 days' written notice is given to the other parent, including the travel itinerary, destination, accommodations, and emergency contact information.
On-location work provision. Ms. Fonseca maintains her position, as articulated during Session 1, that 14 consecutive calendar days is the appropriate threshold for triggering a transfer of custodial time when either parent's work requires extended travel. If either parent's work obligations require travel exceeding 14 consecutive calendar days, the custodial time that would have fallen during those days shall transfer to the other parent, and the traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up time to be scheduled within 60 days following the conclusion of the work-related travel, at mutually convenient times, with the assistance of the parenting plan coordinator if necessary.
Ms. Fonseca opposes Mr. Medrano's proposed 21-day threshold for the following reasons:
•  Children's ages. Isabela is six years old and Mateo is four years old. Children of this age have limited capacity to manage extended separations from a custodial parent without experiencing distress, anxiety, and disruption to their routines. A 21-day absence — three full weeks — is a substantial period for a young child and would effectively mean that a parent could be entirely absent for three consecutive weeks during their custodial time without any adjustment to the schedule.
•  Mr. Medrano's work history. The nature of Mr. Medrano's freelance work as a cinematographer and director of photography frequently involves multi-week on-location shoots. The seven-week shoot in Vancouver, British Columbia in early 2023 — which was a significant catalyst for the initiation of these proceedings — illustrates the practical impact of extended work-related absences. A 21-day threshold would allow Mr. Medrano to be on location for up to 20 consecutive days during his custodial time without triggering any schedule adjustment, potentially resulting in the children being cared for by third parties for extended periods during what is nominally Mr. Medrano's parenting time.
•  Minor's Counsel's position. As noted above, Ms. Brannigan has expressed support for the 14-day threshold, consistent with her assessment of the children's developmental needs.
•  Balance and fairness. The 14-day threshold applies equally to both parties. Ms. Fonseca's own work at Luminos Entertainment Group occasionally requires travel, and she would be subject to the same provision. The threshold is not punitive; it simply ensures that custodial time is spent with the custodial parent, not with substitute caregivers.
E. Right of First Refusal
Consistent with the preliminary consensus reached during Session 1, Ms. Fonseca proposes that when a parent is unavailable for more than 8 consecutive hours during their custodial time (excluding the children's normal sleeping hours), the other parent shall have the right of first refusal for childcare before a third-party caregiver is engaged. The unavailable parent shall provide notice to the other parent as soon as practicable, and in no event less than 24 hours in advance except in the case of an emergency. If the other parent is unable or unwilling to exercise the right of first refusal, the custodial parent may arrange for third-party childcare without further obligation.
The specific terms and procedures for exercising the right of first refusal, including notice requirements, response times, and pick-up/drop-off logistics, shall be set forth in Exhibit B to the final agreement.
F. Parenting Plan Coordinator
Both parties agreed in principle during Session 1 to the appointment of a parenting plan coordinator to assist in resolving day-to-day disputes that may arise under the parenting plan. The use of a parenting plan coordinator is increasingly common in family law matters involving high-conflict or high-stakes custody arrangements, and Ms. Fonseca believes that the appointment of a qualified coordinator will serve the children's interests by reducing parental conflict and providing a structured mechanism for resolving disagreements without resorting to court intervention.
Ms. Fonseca proposes Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, CA 90024, as the parenting plan coordinator. Dr. Ingalls has extensive experience working with families in custody disputes, including families in the entertainment industry, and has served as a parenting plan coordinator in numerous cases in Los Angeles County. Ms. Fonseca has confirmed Dr. Ingalls's availability and willingness to serve in this capacity.
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the costs of the parenting plan coordinator be split equally (50/50) between the parties, regardless of which party initiates the consultation. This equal cost-sharing arrangement ensures that neither party is deterred from seeking the coordinator's assistance when a dispute arises, and it reflects the shared responsibility of both parents for the smooth functioning of the co-parenting relationship.
Ms. Fonseca awaits Mr. Medrano's response regarding the selection of Dr. Ingalls and welcomes the opportunity to discuss alternative candidates if Mr. Medrano has concerns about this selection.
IV. CHILD SUPPORT — GUIDELINE ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED DEVIATION
A. Income of the Parties
A child support determination under the California guideline formula requires an accurate assessment of both parties' gross monthly incomes. The parties' respective incomes are as follows:
Marguerite D. Fonseca. Ms. Fonseca is employed as Senior Vice President, Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. ("Luminos"), headquartered at 3200 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505. Ms. Fonseca's total annual compensation consists of the following components:
Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income is therefore $870,000 ÷ 12 = $72,500 per month. The three-year average for Ms. Fonseca's discretionary bonus is used to smooth year-to-year variability, and her RSU vesting schedule is based on grant-date awards that vest ratably over four years, with $175,000 representing the annualized value of currently vesting grants.
Rafael J. Medrano. Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography, operating through his loan-out entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC, a California limited liability company. Mr. Medrano's income is inherently variable from year to year, depending on the number and scope of projects he books. The parties' forensic income analyst, Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP (333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90071), conducted a comprehensive forensic income analysis and determined that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income is $340,000. This analysis considered Mr. Medrano's business income as reported on the Medrano Visuals, LLC tax returns (Form 1065), Mr. Medrano's personal tax returns (Form 1040), distributions from the LLC, and Mr. Medrano's work history and professional credentials.
Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income is therefore $340,000 ÷ 12 ≈ $28,333 per month. Ms. Fonseca submits that imputation of income at this level is appropriate under California Family Code section 4058(b), which permits the court to consider a parent's earning capacity in light of the parent's ability, opportunity, and willingness to earn. Mr. Medrano is a highly skilled and credentialed cinematographer with a strong professional reputation and consistent work history in the entertainment industry. His earning capacity is commensurate with the three-year average income figure.
Combined gross monthly income: $72,500 + $28,333 = $100,833 per month.
B. Guideline Calculation (DissoMaster)
Under the California child support guideline formula set forth in California Family Code sections 4055 et seq., the guideline child support amount is determined based on the parties' respective incomes, the number of children, the applicable tax filing status and deductions, and the percentage of time each parent has physical custody of the children. The guideline formula is expressed as:
CS = K [HN – (H%)(TN)]
where "K" is an income allocation factor, "HN" is the high earner's net disposable income, "H%" is the approximate percentage of time the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children, and "TN" is the total net monthly disposable income of both parties.
Using the DissoMaster software program — the standard tool employed by California family law courts for guideline support calculations — and inputting the parties' gross monthly incomes, the proposed timeshare of 63.6% to Ms. Fonseca and 36.4% to Mr. Medrano (232/133 overnights), applicable tax rates, standard deductions, and other relevant parameters, the guideline child support amount for two children is calculated as follows:
Guideline child support amount: $1,274 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano.
Despite Ms. Fonseca's significantly higher income, the guideline amount is moderated by her majority timeshare. Under the California formula, the higher-earning parent who also has majority custody pays less in child support than a higher-earning parent with minority custody, because the custodial parent is already bearing a disproportionate share of the children's direct costs through the provision of housing, food, utilities, and other daily necessities during the majority of the children's time. If Mr. Medrano's proposed 55/45 timeshare were adopted, the guideline amount payable by Ms. Fonseca would be substantially higher, because Ms. Fonseca would have fewer overnights while retaining the same income.
The complete DissoMaster calculation printout has been prepared and is available for the mediator's review upon request. Counsel is prepared to bring the printout to Session 2.
C. Ms. Fonseca's Proposed Deviation from Guideline
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the parties agree to child support in the amount of $1,100 per month, payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano. This represents a deviation of $174 per month below the guideline amount ($1,274 − $1,100 = $174), which is a modest deviation of approximately 13.7%.
California Family Code section 4057(b) permits deviation from the guideline amount where the parties stipulate to a different amount and the court finds that the stipulated amount is not unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances. A stipulated deviation is routinely approved when it is supported by a rational basis and when the overall financial arrangement adequately provides for the children's needs. Ms. Fonseca submits that the proposed deviation is justified for the following reasons:
1.  Offsetting extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement. As set forth in Section V.B below, Ms. Fonseca proposes that Mr. Medrano bear 60% of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs (with Ms. Fonseca bearing 40%), up to a cap of $1,500 per child per quarter. This disproportionately favorable arrangement for Mr. Medrano provides a direct financial offset to the $174/month reduction in monthly support. When the total economic package is considered — including monthly support, tuition sharing, extracurricular sharing, and healthcare sharing — Mr. Medrano receives a comprehensive and fair financial arrangement that fully supports his ability to provide for the children during his custodial time.
2.  Ms. Fonseca's disproportionate share of educational costs. As discussed in Section V.A below, Ms. Fonseca proposes to bear 70% of the children's Ridgeview Academy tuition costs, which total $59,200 per year. Ms. Fonseca's 70% share amounts to $41,440 per year, or approximately $3,453 per month. This substantial ongoing financial commitment by Ms. Fonseca benefits the children directly and indirectly benefits Mr. Medrano by reducing his share of tuition to $17,760 per year, or approximately $1,480 per month.
3.  Modest magnitude of the deviation. The proposed deviation is $174 per month, which amounts to $2,088 per year. In the context of the parties' combined gross annual income of approximately $1,210,000 and the comprehensive financial terms being proposed, this is a modest adjustment that does not materially affect Mr. Medrano's financial well-being or his ability to provide for the children.
D. Response to Mr. Medrano's Support Position
Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal seeks guideline child support or above-guideline support. Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that this position is unreasonable in light of the comprehensive financial terms being proposed.
First, Mr. Medrano's support calculation appears to be premised on his proposed 55/45 timeshare. At that timeshare, the guideline amount would be substantially higher than $1,274 per month, because the higher-income parent (Ms. Fonseca) would have fewer overnights. However, as set forth above and throughout this Brief, the appropriate timeshare is 63.6/36.4, not 55/45. The custody evaluation, Minor's Counsel's input, and the children's established routine all support the 63.6/36.4 timeshare, and the support calculation should reflect that timeshare.
Second, even at the agreed timeshare of 63.6/36.4, Ms. Fonseca's proposed figure of $1,100 per month, combined with the accompanying cost-sharing arrangements for tuition, extracurricular activities, and healthcare, represents a fair and comprehensive financial package for Mr. Medrano. When all financial flows are considered, Mr. Medrano receives substantial financial support that is commensurate with the children's needs and the parties' respective abilities to contribute.
Ms. Fonseca is not seeking to minimize her financial obligations to her children. She is, and has always been, the children's primary financial provider, and she is prepared to continue bearing the majority of the children's expenses. The proposed $1,100 per month, combined with the cost-sharing terms, ensures that the children's needs are fully met while respecting the legitimate interests of both parents.
V. EDUCATION, EXTRACURRICULAR, AND HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING
A. Education Costs — Ridgeview Academy Tuition
Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. Both parties have expressed their commitment to maintaining the children's enrollment at Ridgeview, and this commitment was one of the areas of consensus reached during Session 1. The current annual tuition costs are as follows:
Ms. Fonseca proposes that tuition costs be split 70% to Ms. Fonseca / 30% to Mr. Medrano, as follows:
This 70/30 split is roughly proportionate to the parties' respective shares of combined gross monthly income. Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income of $72,500 represents approximately 71.9% of the parties' combined gross monthly income of $100,833, while Mr. Medrano's gross monthly income of $28,333 represents approximately 28.1%. The proposed 70/30 split closely tracks these income percentages, rounding modestly in Mr. Medrano's favor.
Mr. Medrano's counter-proposal of a 50/50 tuition split is inequitable and would impose a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Medrano himself. Under a 50/50 split, each parent would pay approximately $29,600 per year in tuition. For Ms. Fonseca, $29,600 represents approximately 3.4% of her gross annual income of $870,000. For Mr. Medrano, $29,600 represents approximately 8.7% of his gross annual income of $340,000 — more than 2.5 times the proportionate burden borne by Ms. Fonseca. This disproportionate burden on Mr. Medrano would ultimately be to the children's detriment, as it would constrain Mr. Medrano's financial ability to provide for the children's needs during his custodial time and could create resentment or financial stress that negatively affects the co-parenting relationship.
Ms. Fonseca submits that an income-proportionate tuition split is both equitable and in the children's best interests, and she urges the mediator to assist the parties in reaching agreement on this basis.
B. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activities
Ms. Fonseca proposes that extracurricular and enrichment activity costs be split 60% to Mr. Medrano / 40% to Ms. Fonseca for activities costing up to $1,500 per child per quarter. Any cost above the $1,500 per child per quarter cap shall require the mutual written consent of both parents before enrollment, ensuring that neither parent can unilaterally commit the other to extracurricular expenses beyond a reasonable threshold.
This allocation, which is disproportionately favorable to Mr. Medrano, is the offsetting consideration for the $174 per month deviation below guideline child support discussed in Section IV.C above. In effect, Mr. Medrano bears a larger share of extracurricular costs but receives a modestly reduced monthly support payment. This arrangement may provide practical advantages for Mr. Medrano, including greater direct involvement in funding the children's enrichment activities and potential tax or financial planning benefits.
The total potential quarterly extracurricular cost at the cap is $1,500 per child × 2 children = $3,000 per quarter, or $12,000 per year. At the proposed 60/40 split, the maximum annual shares would be:
Both Isabela and Mateo are currently enrolled in age-appropriate extracurricular activities, including swimming lessons and an art enrichment program for Isabela and a toddler music class for Mateo. Current quarterly costs are well within the proposed $1,500 per child per quarter cap, and Ms. Fonseca anticipates that costs will remain within this range for the foreseeable future, subject to the children's evolving interests and developmental needs.
C. Healthcare.  The children are currently covered, and will continue to be covered, under Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. The plan is administered by Veridian Health Insurance Co. and provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for the children. Ms. Fonseca bears the premium cost as part of her employment benefits, and no additional premium contribution is sought from Mr. Medrano.
For unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses — i.e., expenses not covered by the Veridian Health Insurance plan — Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70% Fonseca / 30% Medrano split, consistent with the income-proportionate framework applied to tuition and other shared expenses. This includes, without limitation, co-pays, deductibles, orthodontic treatment, prescription medications, vision care (including corrective lenses), and any mental health or therapeutic services recommended by the children's healthcare providers.
Each parent shall submit documentation of unreimbursed healthcare expenses to the other parent within 30 days of incurring the expense, together with proof of payment and any applicable insurance explanation of benefits. The non-incurring parent shall reimburse their proportionate share within 30 days of receipt of the documentation.
VI. ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION PROVISIONS
Ms. Fonseca proposes that the child support amount be subject to review on the anniversary of the entry of the order, or at any time upon a material change in circumstances. For purposes of this provision, a "material change in circumstances" shall be defined as:
(a) A change in either party's gross annual income exceeding 15% (whether an increase or a decrease), sustained over a period of at least six months; or
(b) A change in the timeshare arrangement exceeding 10% of the total annual overnights (i.e., a change of more than 36.5 overnights per year).
This modification provision protects both parties against future uncertainties. If Mr. Medrano's freelance income increases substantially — as may well occur given his talent and professional trajectory — the child support figure can be revisited downward or eliminated. Conversely, if Mr. Medrano's income decreases or if Ms. Fonseca's compensation changes materially, the support figure can be adjusted accordingly. The 15% income threshold ensures that minor fluctuations in either party's income do not trigger unnecessary renegotiation, while the 10% timeshare threshold provides a meaningful standard for custodial modifications.
Either party may initiate a review by providing written notice to the other party, together with documentation supporting the claimed material change. If the parties are unable to agree on a modified support figure within 60 days of the notice, either party may seek modification through the court in accordance with applicable law.
VII. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT
Ms. Fonseca proposes the inclusion of a mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement clause in any final agreement reached through this mediation. Both parties are public-facing professionals in the entertainment industry. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Original Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, one of the major entertainment companies in Los Angeles. Mr. Medrano is a respected freelance cinematographer and director of photography whose professional reputation is critical to his ability to secure work and maintain his earning capacity. The nature of the entertainment industry is such that personal information, particularly information relating to family law disputes, can be disseminated widely and rapidly through industry channels and media, with potentially damaging consequences for both parties' careers and, most importantly, for the children's well-being and privacy.
Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms:
(a) Confidentiality. Neither party shall disclose the financial terms of the agreement, the contents of the custody evaluation, or the substance of the mediation proceedings to any third party, except as necessary to legal counsel, tax advisors, financial planners, or as required by court order or applicable law. Each party shall instruct their respective advisors and agents of the confidentiality obligations set forth herein.
(b) Non-disparagement. Neither party shall make disparaging, derogatory, or defamatory statements about the other party to third parties, including but not limited to friends, family members, colleagues, media representatives, or on social media platforms. This provision does not restrict either party's ability to communicate truthfully and in good faith with legal counsel, mental health professionals, or the parenting plan coordinator regarding matters arising under the parenting plan.
The children's privacy interests are paramount. The court has already granted the parties' stipulation to seal the court file in this matter, reflecting both parties' shared commitment to shielding Isabela and Mateo from the public aspects of this dispute. The proposed confidentiality and non-disparagement clause reinforces that commitment and extends it to the terms of the mediated agreement itself.
VIII. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 2
For the mediator's convenience, Ms. Fonseca respectfully summarizes the principal issues that remain in dispute and that should be the focus of discussion during Session 2:
1.  Timeshare percentage. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 63.6/36.4 timeshare (232/133 overnights); Mr. Medrano seeks 55/45 (approximately 201/164 overnights). The custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen supports a majority-time arrangement with Ms. Fonseca, and Minor's Counsel, Ms. Brannigan, has expressed support for a primary-residence framework. Ms. Fonseca has already moved from her Session 1 position of approximately 65/35 and believes that 63.6/36.4 represents a fair and evidence-based compromise. Further movement by Ms. Fonseca is limited given the evaluator's recommendation and the children's developmental needs.
2.  Child support amount. Ms. Fonseca proposes $1,100 per month (a deviation of $174 below the guideline amount of $1,274); Mr. Medrano seeks guideline or above-guideline support. The extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement, in which Mr. Medrano bears 60% of extracurricular costs, is the principal offsetting factor justifying the deviation. Ms. Fonseca submits that the total economic package — monthly support, tuition sharing, extracurricular sharing, and healthcare sharing — is fair and comprehensive.
3.  Tie-breaking authority on educational decisions. Ms. Fonseca seeks tie-breaking authority on educational decisions only, based on her established role as the primary educational decision-maker and the supporting findings of the custody evaluation. Mr. Medrano opposes any tie-breaking authority, preferring fully equal joint legal custody on all issues. This issue may benefit from the mediator's guidance, as it involves questions of principle that are difficult to resolve through numerical compromise.
4.  On-location work threshold. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 14-consecutive-calendar-day threshold for triggering custodial time transfers during extended work-related travel; Mr. Medrano proposes 21 consecutive calendar days. Minor's Counsel supports the 14-day threshold. The children's ages and Mr. Medrano's demonstrated pattern of multi-week on-location work support the shorter threshold.
5.  Tuition cost-sharing ratio. Ms. Fonseca proposes a 70/30 split, which is proportionate to the parties' respective incomes; Mr. Medrano proposes a 50/50 split, which would impose a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Medrano and is inconsistent with the income-proportionate framework applied to other shared expenses.
6.  Parenting plan coordinator selection. Ms. Fonseca has proposed Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT, of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, as the parenting plan coordinator. Ms. Fonseca awaits Mr. Medrano's response regarding this selection and is open to discussing alternative candidates if Mr. Medrano has objections.
Ms. Fonseca is hopeful that, with the mediator's skilled assistance, the parties can narrow or resolve these remaining issues during Session 2.
IX. CONCLUSION
Ms. Fonseca's revised settlement framework, as set forth in this Brief, represents a genuine and good-faith effort to bridge the gap between the parties' positions on the issues that remain in dispute following Session 1. The proposed terms are grounded in the custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Sorensen, the guideline child support calculations under the California Family Code, the input of Minor's Counsel, and — above all — the best interests of Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano.
Ms. Fonseca has moved meaningfully from her Session 1 position, increasing Mr. Medrano's proposed custodial time, agreeing to a 50/50 summer schedule, and proposing a comprehensive financial framework that addresses tuition, extracurricular costs, healthcare, and monthly child support in an integrated and equitable manner. She has done so because she believes that a mediated resolution — rather than protracted litigation — is in the best interests of her children and of both parties.
Ms. Fonseca is committed to the mediation process and approaches Session 2 with flexibility, good faith, and a genuine desire to reach a comprehensive agreement that provides Isabela and Mateo with the stability, security, and loving relationship with both parents that they deserve. Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests the mediator's assistance in facilitating a productive dialogue during Session 2 and in guiding the parties toward a resolution that serves the children's best interests.
Counsel for Ms. Fonseca remains available in advance of Session 2 to discuss any questions the mediator may have, to provide supplemental information or documentation, or to coordinate with counsel for Mr. Medrano and Minor's Counsel on any logistical matters relating to the session.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer, Lead Associate California State Bar No. 312487
Priya Anand, Partner California State Bar No. 245103
On Behalf of Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca
Date: December 8, 2023
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This document is confidential and prepared solely for use in mediation proceedings before Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) pursuant to California Evidence Code §§ 1115–1128. It is inadmissible in any subsequent judicial, administrative, or arbitral proceedings. This document may not be filed with any court or disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of all parties to the mediation. C&H Matter No. 1035-00002.
Prepared by: | Calderwood & Harkness LLP
777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attorneys of Record: | Priya Anand, Partner
Devon Archer, Lead Associate
Nadia Petrov, Associate
On Behalf of: | Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, Petitioner
Mediator: | Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.)
Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services
801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Date of Brief: | December 8, 2023
Date of Session 2: | December 15, 2023
C&H Matter No.: | 1035-00002
Overnights | Percentage
Ms. Fonseca | 232 | 63.6%
Mr. Medrano | 133 | 36.4%
Total | 365 | 100.0%
Component | Annual Amount
Base salary | $485,000
Average annual discretionary bonus (3-year average) | $210,000
Annual RSU vesting (Luminos equity plan) | $175,000
Total annual compensation | $870,000
Child | Date of Birth | Current Grade | Annual Tuition
Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano | February 11, 2017 | First Grade | $32,400
Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano | August 29, 2019 | Pre-Kindergarten | $26,800
Total | $59,200
Ms. Fonseca (70%) | Mr. Medrano (30%)
Isabela | $22,680 | $9,720
Mateo | $18,760 | $8,040
Total | $41,440 | $17,760
Annual Share (at cap)
Mr. Medrano (60%) | $7,200
Ms. Fonseca (40%) | $4,800
Total | $12,000