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

mediation-brief-session-3.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

28 / 36 ← → ✕

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ.

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF OF PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA — SESSION 3

Prepared by:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-8100 Facsimile: (213) 555-8101

Priya Anand (CA State Bar No. 245781), Partner Devon Archer (CA State Bar No. 298034), Lead Associate Nadia Petrov (CA State Bar No. 326511), Associate

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca

Submitted to:

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

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

C&H Matter No.: 1035-00002

Date of Submission: January 12, 2024

Mediation Session 3 Scheduled: January 19, 2024

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF

This Confidential Mediation Brief is respectfully submitted by Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") through her counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP in advance of the third and final mediation session in this matter, scheduled for January 19, 2024, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.

The purpose of this brief is threefold. First, Ms. Fonseca seeks to summarize the substantial and meaningful progress that the parties have achieved over the course of Session 1, held on November 17, 2023, and Session 2, held on December 15, 2023. Those two sessions resulted in agreement on the vast majority of the disputed issues in this case, including legal custody, physical custody and timeshare, the holiday and vacation rotation schedule, base child support, education costs, and healthcare coverage for the minor children. Second, this brief identifies the narrow set of remaining open issues that the parties have not yet been able to resolve — specifically, extracurricular and enrichment activity cost-sharing, travel notice provisions and an on-location work protocol, and the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator. Third, and most importantly, this brief presents Ms. Fonseca's final proposals on each of these remaining open issues, with the goal of facilitating a complete and comprehensive resolution at Session 3.

Ms. Fonseca's overriding objective throughout this mediation has been, and continues to be, the development of a comprehensive, durable custody and parenting plan agreement that serves the best interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: February 11, 2017; currently age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: August 29, 2019; currently age 4). These children are the center of this dispute, and every proposal Ms. Fonseca has made — and every concession she has offered — has been guided by the principle that their welfare, stability, and emotional health must take precedence over the interests of either parent.

Ms. Fonseca strongly believes that a mediated resolution is far preferable to a contested hearing for all parties, and especially for the children. Both Ms. Fonseca and Respondent Alejandro R. Medrano ("Mr. Medrano") are public-facing entertainment professionals. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., and Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography operating through his entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC. Resolution through mediation preserves the confidentiality that both parties value; the court file in this matter has already been sealed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., and a mediated settlement avoids the risk of public testimony or a published decision that could expose the children to unwanted attention.

Given the progress that has already been made, Ms. Fonseca respectfully urges the Mediator to assist the parties in reaching a complete resolution of all remaining issues during this session. The gaps between the parties' positions are narrow, and the proposals set forth in this brief represent meaningful compromises designed to bridge those gaps. Ms. Fonseca and her counsel are prepared to remain for the entirety of the session and to participate in drafting term sheets or a stipulated agreement on the spot if agreement is reached.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following procedural history is provided for the Mediator's reference and to contextualize the issues addressed in this brief.

Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Medrano registered their domestic partnership on September 12, 2015, with the California Secretary of State (File No. DP-2015-038741). Two children were born of the partnership: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano on February 11, 2017, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano on August 29, 2019. Both children have resided primarily in Los Angeles County since birth.

On July 8, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The dissolution judgment was entered on November 3, 2022, terminating the domestic partnership. However, the court expressly reserved jurisdiction over the issues of child custody, visitation, and child support, as the parties had been unable to reach agreement on those matters at the time of dissolution.

In early 2023, the parties' inability to reach a custody agreement was exacerbated by Mr. Medrano's acceptance of an extended on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, lasting approximately seven weeks in February and March of 2023. During that period, Ms. Fonseca bore the entirety of the childcare responsibilities without prior coordination or agreement, which precipitated the immediate need for formal custody proceedings.

Calderwood & Harkness LLP was retained by Ms. Fonseca on April 18, 2023, to represent her in the custody and child support proceedings. On May 2, 2023, Ms. Fonseca filed a Request for Order regarding custody and child support. Following a hearing on May 30, 2023, the court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceedings.

On June 22, 2023, Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894) was appointed by the court pursuant to Family Code section 3150 to represent the interests of both minor children. Ms. Brannigan has been actively involved in this matter since her appointment and has participated in both prior mediation sessions.

By stipulation of the parties, the court ordered a comprehensive custody evaluation on July 14, 2023. The evaluation was conducted by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. Dr. Sorensen conducted individual interviews with both parents, home visits at both residences, observation of each parent's interaction with the children, collateral interviews with childcare providers, school personnel, and family members, and age-appropriate assessments of both children. Dr. Sorensen delivered her evaluation report on October 6, 2023. The report's findings and recommendations are discussed in Section VII below.

Additionally, a forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's freelance earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC was completed by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis examined Mr. Medrano's income tax returns, bank statements, and business records for the three most recent tax years and concluded that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income was $340,000, which figure was used for purposes of the DissoMaster guideline child support calculation as discussed in Section III.D below.

The first mediation session was held on November 17, 2023, and the second mediation session was held on December 15, 2023, both before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.). As set forth in detail in Section III below, those sessions produced agreement on the majority of the contested issues in this case.

Mr. Medrano is represented throughout these proceedings by Gwendolyn R. Kwan (California State Bar No. 218453) and Benjamin T. Okafor (California State Bar No. 312776) of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, located at 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505.

III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES RESOLVED IN SESSIONS 1 AND 2

Before addressing the remaining open issues, Ms. Fonseca wishes to highlight the significant progress that the parties have achieved through the mediation process. The issues resolved in Sessions 1 and 2 represent the framework of a comprehensive custody and parenting plan, and Ms. Fonseca is grateful for the Mediator's skillful facilitation of these agreements. The following is a summary of each resolved issue.

A. Legal Custody — Resolved

The parties have agreed to joint legal custody of both minor children. Under this arrangement, both parents will share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of Isabela and Mateo.

Significantly, the parties have further agreed that Ms. Fonseca shall have tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, including but not limited to school selection, enrollment, withdrawal, tutoring, and decisions regarding special education services or academic accommodations. This agreement was reached during Session 2 after Mr. Medrano withdrew his objection to the tie-breaking provision. Ms. Fonseca appreciates Mr. Medrano's willingness to agree to this arrangement, which reflects the practical reality that Ms. Fonseca has served as the primary point of contact with Ridgeview Academy since the children's enrollment and has taken the lead on educational planning and advocacy throughout the children's lives.

On all other major decisions — including healthcare, extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing — the parties will have equal authority, with neither parent empowered to act unilaterally. In the event of a disagreement on any such decision, the parties have agreed to consult with the Parenting Plan Coordinator (discussed in Section IV.C below) before seeking court intervention.

B. Physical Custody and Timeshare — Resolved

The parties have agreed to joint physical custody, with the primary residence of both children established with Ms. Fonseca at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. This arrangement reflects the children's existing living situation and ensures continuity with their current school, neighborhood, friends, and daily routines.

The agreed-upon timeshare during the school year is as follows: Ms. Fonseca will have 232 overnights per year, and Mr. Medrano will have 133 overnights per year, resulting in an approximate 63.6% / 36.4% split in favor of Ms. Fonseca. This timeshare was carefully negotiated over both sessions and reflects the children's established patterns, Mr. Medrano's work schedule (which periodically requires extended travel for on-location shoots), and the recommendations of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation.

For the summer schedule, covering the ten-week summer break (approximately 70 days), the parties have agreed to an equal 50/50 split — 35 overnights with each parent. The parties recognize that the summer period offers greater flexibility for both parents and provides an opportunity for Mr. Medrano to have extended, uninterrupted time with the children.

This revised timeshare proposal was formally transmitted by Calderwood & Harkness to Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels on December 22, 2023, following Session 2. Mr. Medrano indicated preliminary acceptance of the proposal during post-Session 2 discussions between counsel, and Ms. Fonseca understands that Mr. Medrano's acceptance remains subject to the resolution of the remaining open issues at Session 3.

C. Holiday and Vacation Rotation — Resolved

The parties have agreed to an alternating even/odd year schedule for the major holidays and school vacations. This rotation applies to Thanksgiving, winter break (including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Year's), spring break, and each parent's designated holidays (including, for example, Mother's Day, Father's Day, the children's birthdays, and each parent's birthday). The specific dates, exchange times, and pickup/drop-off logistics have been detailed in a draft Holiday & Vacation Schedule, which will be attached as Exhibit A to the final Agreement. The draft was circulated between counsel following Session 2 and is substantially in final form, subject only to minor conforming edits.

D. Base Child Support — Resolved

The parties have agreed on the base child support obligation, which was calculated using the DissoMaster guideline formula and then adjusted by mutual agreement as described below.

Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income is $72,500, based on her total annual compensation of $870,000 from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. This total compensation consists of a base salary of $485,000, average annual bonus compensation of $210,000 (based on a three-year average of actual bonus payments), and annual restricted stock unit ("RSU") vesting valued at approximately $175,000. These figures are well-documented and were not disputed by Mr. Medrano or his counsel.

Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income is $28,333, based on an imputed annual income of $340,000. This figure represents the three-year average of Mr. Medrano's annual income as determined by the forensic income analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. The use of a three-year average was necessary because Mr. Medrano's income as a freelance cinematographer fluctuates significantly from year to year, and a single-year snapshot would not provide an accurate basis for the guideline calculation.

The combined gross monthly income of the parties is therefore $100,833.

The DissoMaster guideline calculation, using the agreed-upon 63.6% / 36.4% timeshare and two minor children, yields a guideline child support amount of $1,274 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano.

However, the parties have agreed to stipulate to a child support amount of $1,100 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano, representing a deviation of $174 per month below guideline. This below-guideline deviation is justified under California Family Code section 4057(b) by Mr. Medrano's agreement to bear a higher share of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs — specifically, the 60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca split that is discussed as a remaining open issue in Section IV.A below. The below-guideline support and the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement are intended to operate as reciprocal components of a single, integrated economic agreement.

The parties have further agreed that child support shall be subject to annual review on the anniversary of the date of the court order, or upon a material change in circumstances. For purposes of this provision, a material change in circumstances includes a change in either party's income exceeding 15% or a change in the timeshare arrangement exceeding 10%.

E. Education Costs — Resolved

Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Isabela is in the second grade, and Mateo is in the pre-kindergarten program. Ridgeview is a well-regarded independent school that both parents selected together prior to the dissolution, and both parents are actively involved in the school community.

The current annual tuition for Isabela is $32,400, and the current annual tuition for Mateo is $26,800, for a total annual tuition of $59,200. The parties have agreed to split tuition costs as follows: 70% Ms. Fonseca ($41,440 per year) / 30% Mr. Medrano ($17,760 per year). This split roughly corresponds to the proportionate income ratio between the parties and was agreed upon during Session 1 without significant dispute.

Additionally, the parties have agreed that the children will remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy through the completion of elementary school unless both parents provide mutual written consent to a change in school placement. This provision ensures educational continuity for both children and aligns with Ms. Fonseca's tie-breaking authority on educational decisions.

F. Healthcare — Resolved

The parties have agreed that both children shall remain on Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan provided through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. and administered by Veridian Health Insurance Co. This plan provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for the children at no additional premium cost to Ms. Fonseca beyond her standard employee contribution, making it the most cost-effective coverage option available to the family.

For unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses — including copayments, deductibles, and expenses not covered by the insurance plan — the parties have agreed to a split of 70% Ms. Fonseca / 30% Mr. Medrano, consistent with the proportionate income ratio and the tuition cost-sharing arrangement. Each parent shall submit documentation of unreimbursed expenses to the other parent within 30 days of incurring the expense, and reimbursement shall be made within 30 days of receipt of documentation.

IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3

Despite the extensive progress summarized above, three discrete issues remain unresolved as of the close of Session 2. Ms. Fonseca believes that the parties' positions on each of these issues are close, and that resolution is achievable within a single mediation session. Ms. Fonseca presents her final proposals on each issue below, together with the background necessary to contextualize the remaining areas of disagreement.

A. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activity Cost-Sharing

1. Background of the Dispute. The allocation of costs for extracurricular and enrichment activities has been a recurring topic of discussion throughout this mediation. During Session 1, Ms. Fonseca proposed that extracurricular costs be split in proportion to the parties' respective incomes, which would result in an approximately 72% Fonseca / 28% Medrano division. This proposal was consistent with the income-proportionate approach adopted for tuition and healthcare expenses.

Mr. Medrano counter-proposed a 50/50 split of extracurricular costs. His counsel argued that because both parents participate equally in selecting and supporting the children's extracurricular activities, the costs should be shared equally regardless of the income disparity.

During Session 2, the discussion evolved significantly as the parties simultaneously negotiated the below-guideline child support deviation. Ms. Fonseca offered a 60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca split of extracurricular costs as a reciprocal component of the below-guideline support arrangement. In other words, Ms. Fonseca's agreement to pay $174 per month less than the guideline support amount is directly tied to Mr. Medrano's agreement to assume a disproportionately higher share of extracurricular costs. This structure ensures that the overall economic arrangement remains fair and balanced while directing additional resources specifically toward the children's enrichment.

At the close of Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, indicated that Mr. Medrano would accept the 60/40 Medrano/Fonseca split in principle but wanted a cap on quarterly expenditures to ensure that neither parent could unilaterally commit the other to unlimited extracurricular expenses. Ms. Fonseca agrees that a reasonable cap is appropriate and has incorporated one into her final proposal below.

2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal. Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms for extracurricular and enrichment activity cost-sharing:

(a) Extracurricular and enrichment activity costs shall be split 60% Mr. Medrano / 40% Ms. Fonseca for activities costing up to $1,500 per child per quarter.

(b) Any single activity, or combination of activities, the cost of which would exceed $1,500 per child per quarter shall require the mutual written consent of both parents before enrollment. Neither parent may unilaterally enroll a child in an activity that would cause the per-child quarterly cap to be exceeded without the other parent's prior written agreement.

(c) The cap shall apply per child. Accordingly, the maximum quarterly expenditure subject to the 60/40 split without additional consent is $1,500 for Isabela and $1,500 for Mateo, for a combined maximum of $3,000 per quarter, or $12,000 per year.

(d) Activities in which the children are currently enrolled as of the date of the Agreement (including, by way of example, any existing music lessons, art classes, sports programs, or similar enrichment activities) shall be grandfathered and shall not count against the per-child quarterly cap for the first year following execution of the Agreement. After the first year, all activities, including grandfathered activities, shall be subject to the cap.

(e) For purposes of this provision, "extracurricular and enrichment activities" shall include, but not be limited to, organized sports leagues, music lessons, art classes, dance classes, language instruction, coding or STEM programs, scouting, summer camps (day camps only; overnight camps shall be treated as a separate category requiring mutual consent), and other similar programs or activities.

Ms. Fonseca believes this proposal is fair, reasonable, and responsive to Mr. Medrano's stated concern about uncapped expenditures. The $1,500-per-child-per-quarter cap provides meaningful protection against runaway costs while preserving sufficient flexibility to ensure that Isabela and Mateo can participate in the kinds of enrichment activities that both parents agree are important to the children's development. The grandfathering provision for existing activities ensures that the children are not disrupted in their current programs during the transition to the new arrangement. Most importantly, this proposal is inextricably linked to the below-guideline support deviation and ensures that Mr. Medrano has meaningful input on expenditure decisions above the cap while honoring the economic quid pro quo that underlies the entire support agreement.

B. Travel Notice Provisions and On-Location Work Protocol

1. Background of the Dispute. During Session 2, the parties reached agreement in principle on the need for a formal travel notice framework to be included in the parenting plan. Both parties recognized that clear travel protocols are essential given their respective careers in the entertainment industry, which periodically require travel away from the Los Angeles area. However, the parties were unable to agree on specific parameters, and the issue was carried over to Session 3.

Mr. Medrano objected to Ms. Fonseca's originally proposed 45-day notice period for international travel, arguing that it was impractical given the short-turnaround nature of freelance film work. Mr. Medrano's counsel, Mr. Okafor, represented that Mr. Medrano frequently receives offers for international shoots on relatively short notice and that a 45-day advance notice requirement would effectively preclude him from accepting certain types of work, thereby impairing his earning capacity.

Ms. Fonseca appreciates Mr. Medrano's professional constraints but maintains that reasonable advance notice is essential to protect the children's stability and to allow the non-traveling parent to make appropriate arrangements. Ms. Fonseca's concern in this area is rooted in direct experience: as noted above, Mr. Medrano's seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, in early 2023 was accepted without advance coordination regarding the children's care. During that seven-week period, Ms. Fonseca was required to shoulder the entirety of the childcare burden, rearrange her own work schedule, and engage additional childcare support — all without any meaningful prior notice or discussion. That experience was a significant precipitating factor in this litigation, and Ms. Fonseca is determined to ensure that the final parenting plan includes clear and enforceable provisions to prevent a recurrence.

2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal. Ms. Fonseca proposes the following travel notice and on-location work provisions:

International Travel (outside the continental United States):

(a) Either parent intending to travel internationally with one or both children shall provide a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent, together with a detailed itinerary including destinations, accommodations, emergency contact information, and travel dates.

(b) International travel with the children shall further require the written consent of the non-traveling parent, or, in the absence of consent, a court order. If the non-traveling parent does not respond to a written request for consent within 10 calendar days, the request shall be deemed denied.

(c) This 30-day notice requirement represents a compromise from Ms. Fonseca's original proposal of 45 days' notice, made in recognition of Mr. Medrano's professional circumstances and the short-turnaround nature of freelance work in the entertainment industry.

Domestic Travel (outside California):

(d) Either parent intending to travel domestically outside the State of California with one or both children shall provide a minimum of 14 days' written notice to the other parent, including the destination, accommodations, emergency contact information, and travel dates.

(e) Domestic travel notice shall be informational only and shall not require the other parent's consent, unless the travel coincides with a scheduled custody exchange, in which case the traveling parent must make alternative arrangements for the exchange in consultation with the other parent.

On-Location Work Provision (applicable to both parents equally):

(f) If either parent accepts work requiring travel of more than 14 consecutive calendar days during that parent's custodial time, the traveling parent's custodial days occurring during the travel period shall transfer to the non-traveling parent. The non-traveling parent shall not be required to consent to the transfer; the transfer shall occur automatically upon notice.

(g) The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up time equal to the number of custodial days transferred. Make-up time must be scheduled within 60 calendar days of the traveling parent's return, at times mutually agreed upon by both parents. If the parents are unable to agree on make-up time within 14 days of the traveling parent's return, either parent may refer the dispute to the Parenting Plan Coordinator for resolution.

(h) Notice of on-location work requiring transfer of custodial time must be provided at least 14 days in advance where practicable. In all cases, notice must be provided as soon as reasonably possible after the parent becomes aware of the work commitment. Failure to provide timely notice shall not excuse the transfer of custodial time but may be considered by the Parenting Plan Coordinator or the court in resolving disputes regarding make-up time scheduling.

Reciprocal Application:

(i) Ms. Fonseca expressly acknowledges that this provision applies equally to her. If her duties at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. — or any future employment — require travel exceeding 14 consecutive calendar days during her custodial time, the same transfer and make-up provisions shall apply. Ms. Fonseca does not seek any asymmetric advantage in this regard. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the children's custodial schedule is maintained and that extended parental absence is accommodated in a fair and predictable manner, regardless of which parent is traveling.

Ms. Fonseca believes this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between the realities of both parties' careers in the entertainment industry and the children's paramount need for stability, predictability, and consistent caregiving. The 30-day international travel notice period is a meaningful concession from Ms. Fonseca's original position and should be workable for Mr. Medrano's professional needs. The 14-day domestic travel notice period is informational and minimally burdensome. And the on-location work transfer provision ensures that the children are not left without adequate parental care during extended work-related absences while preserving the traveling parent's right to make-up time within a reasonable period.

C. Appointment of Parenting Plan Coordinator

1. Background of the Dispute. During Session 2, Ms. Fonseca proposed the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator — a neutral professional who would serve as a resource for the parties in resolving day-to-day scheduling disputes, interpreting ambiguous or unclear provisions of the Agreement, and facilitating the make-up time arrangements contemplated by the on-location work provision. The concept of a Parenting Plan Coordinator is well-established in California family law practice and is particularly valuable in cases involving parents with demanding and unpredictable work schedules in the entertainment industry.

Mr. Medrano agreed in principle to the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator during Session 2. However, he raised two concerns that were not resolved during that session. First, Mr. Medrano expressed concern about the cost of the Coordinator, noting that coordinator fees can be substantial and that he did not wish to be obligated to pay a disproportionate share. Second, Mr. Medrano raised concerns about the selection of the Coordinator, preferring that the parties jointly select the individual rather than have one party make a unilateral nomination.

Ms. Fonseca takes both of these concerns seriously and has incorporated them into her final proposal below.

2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal. Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms for the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator:

(a) The parties shall appoint Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, located at 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, California 90024, as the Parenting Plan Coordinator.

(b) Dr. Ingalls is a licensed marriage and family therapist with extensive experience in high-conflict co-parenting facilitation, parenting coordination, and family dispute resolution. Importantly, Dr. Ingalls was recommended by Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, who is familiar with Dr. Ingalls' qualifications and approach. Ms. Fonseca believes that Dr. Ingalls' endorsement by Minor's Counsel — a neutral party appointed by the court to represent the children's interests — should alleviate any concern that the selection was made unilaterally.

(i) Assisting the parties in interpreting and implementing the provisions of the parenting plan;

(ii) Resolving day-to-day scheduling disputes that the parties are unable to resolve between themselves;

(iii) Facilitating make-up time arrangements under the on-location work provision set forth in Section IV.B above; and

(iv) Making recommendations (non-binding) to the parties regarding modifications to the parenting schedule to accommodate changed circumstances.

(d) The Coordinator shall not have authority to modify the substantive terms of the Agreement, including but not limited to the legal custody arrangement, the physical custody designation, the base timeshare percentages, the child support amount, or the cost-sharing allocations. Any modification of substantive terms shall require either mutual written consent of the parties or a court order.

(e) The cost of the Parenting Plan Coordinator's fees shall be split 50/50 between the parties, regardless of the parties' respective incomes. Ms. Fonseca proposes this equal split — rather than an income-proportionate split — as a gesture of good faith and to ensure that neither party is discouraged from utilizing the Coordinator's services by a disproportionate cost burden.

(f) The initial appointment shall be for a term of two years from the date of the court order approving the Agreement. At the expiration of the two-year term, the appointment may be renewed by mutual written consent of the parties for successive one-year terms.

(g) Either party may petition the court to replace the Parenting Plan Coordinator upon a showing of good cause, including but not limited to bias, unavailability, or a material change in the Coordinator's qualifications or practice.

Ms. Fonseca believes that the appointment of Dr. Ingalls will serve as a critical safety valve for the parties' co-parenting relationship, reducing the frequency and intensity of scheduling disputes and minimizing the need for costly and time-consuming court intervention. The 50/50 cost split is a meaningful concession by Ms. Fonseca given her significantly higher income, and the limited scope of authority ensures that the Coordinator serves as a facilitator rather than a decision-maker. The two-year initial term allows sufficient time to evaluate the arrangement's effectiveness while providing a clear mechanism for termination or renewal.

V. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT

In addition to the three open issues discussed in Section IV, Ms. Fonseca proposes the inclusion of a mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality clause in the final Agreement. While this provision was not a disputed issue during Sessions 1 or 2, Ms. Fonseca believes it is an essential component of any comprehensive agreement and wishes to ensure that its terms are clearly articulated.

Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms:

(a) Confidentiality. Neither party shall disclose the financial terms of the Agreement, the contents of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, or any information exchanged during the mediation process to any third party, except to the party's respective legal counsel, tax advisors, financial planners, or as required by court order or applicable law. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement and shall remain in effect indefinitely.

(b) Non-Disparagement. Neither party shall make disparaging, derogatory, or defamatory statements about the other party, whether publicly or privately, in the presence of the children, to the children's teachers, caregivers, or healthcare providers, or on any social media platform or public forum. Each party shall use best efforts to ensure that their respective family members, friends, and associates also refrain from making such statements.

(c) Relationship to Sealing Order. This confidentiality and non-disparagement provision is intended to complement, and not to replace or supersede, the court's existing sealing order issued pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. To the extent that the sealing order provides broader protections, the sealing order shall control.

(d) Children's Privacy. Both parties recognize that the primary purpose of this provision is to protect the privacy and emotional well-being of Isabela and Mateo. The children should not be exposed to conflict between their parents, whether directly or through the dissemination of information about the family's legal proceedings to third parties.

Ms. Fonseca understands that Mr. Medrano has expressed agreement in principle to this provision during prior discussions between counsel, and she does not anticipate significant disagreement on this point. Ms. Fonseca includes the proposed terms here for completeness and to ensure that the Mediator has a full picture of all provisions that would be included in the final Agreement.

VI. SUMMARY OF MS. FONSECA'S COMPLETE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

For the Mediator's convenience, the following table presents a comprehensive summary of all terms — both those previously resolved in Sessions 1 and 2 and those newly proposed for resolution at Session 3 — so that the Mediator and both parties have a single-reference-point overview of the complete proposed settlement.

Ms. Fonseca submits that this comprehensive proposal represents a fair, balanced, and workable framework for the parties' co-parenting relationship. It reflects meaningful compromises on both sides and prioritizes the children's best interests at every turn.

VII. THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS FAVOR RESOLUTION NOW

Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that the best interests of Isabela and Mateo strongly favor the resolution of all remaining issues at Session 3, rather than allowing this matter to proceed to a contested hearing.

Both children are thriving at Ridgeview Academy. Isabela is now in the second grade, where she has formed strong friendships and is performing at or above grade level in all academic areas. Mateo started the current school year in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview and has adapted well to the structured school environment after an initial adjustment period. Both children benefit from the stability and predictability of the current arrangement, which has been in place since the temporary 60/40 custody order was entered on May 30, 2023 — nearly eight months ago.

Dr. Sorensen's comprehensive custody evaluation report, delivered on October 6, 2023, provides strong support for the proposed settlement. Dr. Sorensen found that both parents are fit, loving, and engaged, and that both maintain appropriate and nurturing home environments for the children. Dr. Sorensen recommended joint legal and physical custody with a timeshare arrangement consistent with the parties' proposed 63.6% / 36.4% split, noting that Ms. Fonseca has been the children's primary caregiver for the majority of their lives and that the children are firmly attached to both parents. Dr. Sorensen specifically noted the importance of stability and consistency in the children's schedules, particularly for Mateo, who is at a developmental stage where routine and predictability are essential to emotional security.

Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan has been actively involved in this matter since her appointment on June 22, 2023, and has met with both children, both parents, and the children's teachers and healthcare providers. Ms. Brannigan has indicated her support for the emerging settlement framework, including the timeshare arrangement, the educational provisions, and the parenting coordinator concept. Ms. Brannigan's support reflects her independent assessment that the proposed terms serve the children's best interests.

Continued uncertainty about the permanent custody arrangements would be detrimental to both children's adjustment and emotional well-being. Isabela, now six years old, is increasingly aware of the tensions between her parents and has, according to information provided to Dr. Sorensen, expressed anxiety about "where she will live" and "when she will see Daddy." Mateo, at four years old, is less overtly aware of the custody dispute but is sensitive to disruptions in routine and has shown signs of regression during periods of instability. Prompt resolution will provide both children with the certainty and security they need and will allow the parties to transition from the temporary order to a permanent, detailed parenting plan before the end of the current school year.

Moreover, the passage of time does not favor either party in this case. The issues that remain are narrow and susceptible to compromise, and there is no reason to believe that additional discovery, expert analysis, or judicial intervention would produce a materially better outcome for either party than the one that is achievable through mediation. A contested hearing would be expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging for all involved — most of all for the children.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

Ms. Fonseca has negotiated in good faith throughout this mediation process and has demonstrated her commitment to reaching a fair resolution by making meaningful concessions at every stage. Specifically, Ms. Fonseca has:

• Accepted a below-guideline child support payment of $1,100 per month instead of the DissoMaster guideline amount of $1,274 per month — a difference of $174 per month, or $2,088 per year — in exchange for the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement that ensures additional resources are directed toward the children's enrichment activities.

• Reduced her proposed international travel notice period from 45 days to 30 days, a significant concession made in recognition of the realities of Mr. Medrano's freelance career and the short-turnaround nature of on-location work in the entertainment industry.

• Agreed to a fully reciprocal on-location work transfer provision that applies equally to her, despite the fact that her position at Luminos Entertainment Group provides a substantially more stable and predictable work schedule than Mr. Medrano's freelance career. Ms. Fonseca's willingness to subject herself to the same transfer and make-up provisions reflects her commitment to fairness and her belief that the provision should apply equally to both parents.

• Agreed to a 50/50 cost split for the Parenting Plan Coordinator, despite the fact that her income is more than 2.5 times Mr. Medrano's imputed income. An income-proportionate split would have required Mr. Medrano to pay only approximately 28% of the Coordinator's fees, but Ms. Fonseca has agreed to an equal division as a gesture of good faith and to encourage both parties to utilize the Coordinator's services without hesitation.

These concessions are substantial and reflect Ms. Fonseca's genuine desire to bring this matter to a close in a manner that serves the best interests of Isabela and Mateo. Ms. Fonseca does not make these concessions lightly, and she does not expect to be asked to make further material concessions beyond those already reflected in this brief.

The three remaining open issues — extracurricular cost-sharing, travel notice provisions, and the Parenting Plan Coordinator appointment — are narrow and susceptible to compromise. Ms. Fonseca's final proposals on each of these issues are responsive to Mr. Medrano's stated concerns and represent reasonable middle-ground positions that should be acceptable to both parties.

Ms. Fonseca respectfully urges the Mediator to facilitate a complete resolution of all remaining issues at Session 3 so that the parties can execute a stipulated agreement and submit it to the court for approval without further delay. The children deserve the certainty and stability that a permanent parenting plan will provide, and there is no reason that this matter should proceed to a contested hearing when the parties are this close to agreement.

Ms. Fonseca and her counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP are prepared to remain for a full session on January 19, 2024, and to draft term sheets or a comprehensive stipulated agreement on the spot if agreement is reached. We respectfully request that Mr. Medrano and his counsel come to Session 3 with the same level of preparation and commitment to resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Priya Anand, Partner

By: ________

Devon Archer, Lead Associate

By: ________

Nadia Petrov, Associate

777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-8100 Facsimile: (213) 555-8101

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca

Date: January 12, 2024

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ. This document has been prepared solely for use in mediation proceedings before the Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) and Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. No portion of this brief, or any statement made in connection with this mediation, may be disclosed, admitted into evidence, or otherwise used in any judicial, administrative, or arbitral proceeding, except as expressly permitted by California Evidence Code sections 1119 through 1128. Receipt of this document constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to these restrictions.

Issue	Proposed Term
Legal Custody	Joint legal custody; Ms. Fonseca to have tie-breaking authority on educational decisions (school selection, enrollment, tutoring)
Physical Custody	Joint physical custody; primary residence with Ms. Fonseca at 1742 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604
School-Year Timeshare	232 overnights Ms. Fonseca / 133 overnights Mr. Medrano (approximately 63.6% / 36.4%)
Summer Schedule	50/50 split (35 overnights each over 70-day summer break)
Holidays & Vacations	Alternating even/odd year rotation per Exhibit A to the Agreement
Base Child Support	$1,100/month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano ($174 below guideline of $1,274)
Tuition (Ridgeview Academy)	70% Ms. Fonseca ($41,440/yr) / 30% Mr. Medrano ($17,760/yr); total $59,200/yr; children to remain enrolled through elementary school absent mutual written consent
Extracurriculars	60% Mr. Medrano / 40% Ms. Fonseca; cap of $1,500 per child per quarter ($12,000/yr combined max); mutual consent required for amounts exceeding cap; existing activities grandfathered for first year
Healthcare	Children on Ms. Fonseca's Luminos/Veridian plan; unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health costs split 70% Ms. Fonseca / 30% Mr. Medrano
International Travel	30 days' written notice to other parent plus written consent (or court order)
Domestic Travel (out-of-CA)	14 days' written notice to other parent (informational; no consent required unless coinciding with custody exchange)
On-Location Work Transfer	>14 consecutive calendar days during custodial time triggers transfer of custodial days to non-traveling parent; make-up time within 60 days; 14 days' advance notice where practicable
Parenting Plan Coordinator	Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT; scope limited to interpretation, scheduling disputes, and make-up facilitation; no authority to modify substantive terms; 50/50 cost split; 2-year initial term
Confidentiality / Non-Disparagement	Mutual clause; no disclosure of financial terms, evaluation contents, or mediation information; no disparaging statements; complements court sealing order
Annual Support Review	On anniversary of court order, or upon material change in circumstances (>15% change in either party's income or >10% change in timeshare)

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ.
CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION BRIEF OF PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA — SESSION 3
Prepared by:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-8100 Facsimile: (213) 555-8101
Priya Anand (CA State Bar No. 245781), Partner Devon Archer (CA State Bar No. 298034), Lead Associate Nadia Petrov (CA State Bar No. 326511), Associate
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca
Submitted to:
Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.), Mediator Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90017
In re Fonseca / Medrano Case No. 22STFL09847 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
C&H Matter No.: 1035-00002
Date of Submission: January 12, 2024
Mediation Session 3 Scheduled: January 19, 2024
CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ.
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF
This Confidential Mediation Brief is respectfully submitted by Petitioner Marguerite Delphine Fonseca ("Ms. Fonseca") through her counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP in advance of the third and final mediation session in this matter, scheduled for January 19, 2024, before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.) at Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services.
The purpose of this brief is threefold. First, Ms. Fonseca seeks to summarize the substantial and meaningful progress that the parties have achieved over the course of Session 1, held on November 17, 2023, and Session 2, held on December 15, 2023. Those two sessions resulted in agreement on the vast majority of the disputed issues in this case, including legal custody, physical custody and timeshare, the holiday and vacation rotation schedule, base child support, education costs, and healthcare coverage for the minor children. Second, this brief identifies the narrow set of remaining open issues that the parties have not yet been able to resolve — specifically, extracurricular and enrichment activity cost-sharing, travel notice provisions and an on-location work protocol, and the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator. Third, and most importantly, this brief presents Ms. Fonseca's final proposals on each of these remaining open issues, with the goal of facilitating a complete and comprehensive resolution at Session 3.
Ms. Fonseca's overriding objective throughout this mediation has been, and continues to be, the development of a comprehensive, durable custody and parenting plan agreement that serves the best interests of the minor children, Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: February 11, 2017; currently age 6) and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano (date of birth: August 29, 2019; currently age 4). These children are the center of this dispute, and every proposal Ms. Fonseca has made — and every concession she has offered — has been guided by the principle that their welfare, stability, and emotional health must take precedence over the interests of either parent.
Ms. Fonseca strongly believes that a mediated resolution is far preferable to a contested hearing for all parties, and especially for the children. Both Ms. Fonseca and Respondent Alejandro R. Medrano ("Mr. Medrano") are public-facing entertainment professionals. Ms. Fonseca serves as Senior Vice President of Content Development at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc., and Mr. Medrano is a freelance cinematographer and director of photography operating through his entity, Medrano Visuals, LLC. Resolution through mediation preserves the confidentiality that both parties value; the court file in this matter has already been sealed pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq., and a mediated settlement avoids the risk of public testimony or a published decision that could expose the children to unwanted attention.
Given the progress that has already been made, Ms. Fonseca respectfully urges the Mediator to assist the parties in reaching a complete resolution of all remaining issues during this session. The gaps between the parties' positions are narrow, and the proposals set forth in this brief represent meaningful compromises designed to bridge those gaps. Ms. Fonseca and her counsel are prepared to remain for the entirety of the session and to participate in drafting term sheets or a stipulated agreement on the spot if agreement is reached.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following procedural history is provided for the Mediator's reference and to contextualize the issues addressed in this brief.
Ms. Fonseca and Mr. Medrano registered their domestic partnership on September 12, 2015, with the California Secretary of State (File No. DP-2015-038741). Two children were born of the partnership: Isabela Luz Fonseca-Medrano on February 11, 2017, and Mateo Elías Fonseca-Medrano on August 29, 2019. Both children have resided primarily in Los Angeles County since birth.
On July 8, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The dissolution judgment was entered on November 3, 2022, terminating the domestic partnership. However, the court expressly reserved jurisdiction over the issues of child custody, visitation, and child support, as the parties had been unable to reach agreement on those matters at the time of dissolution.
In early 2023, the parties' inability to reach a custody agreement was exacerbated by Mr. Medrano's acceptance of an extended on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, lasting approximately seven weeks in February and March of 2023. During that period, Ms. Fonseca bore the entirety of the childcare responsibilities without prior coordination or agreement, which precipitated the immediate need for formal custody proceedings.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP was retained by Ms. Fonseca on April 18, 2023, to represent her in the custody and child support proceedings. On May 2, 2023, Ms. Fonseca filed a Request for Order regarding custody and child support. Following a hearing on May 30, 2023, the court entered a temporary custody order establishing a 60/40 timeshare in favor of Ms. Fonseca during the pendency of the proceedings.
On June 22, 2023, Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, Esq. (California State Bar No. 267894) was appointed by the court pursuant to Family Code section 3150 to represent the interests of both minor children. Ms. Brannigan has been actively involved in this matter since her appointment and has participated in both prior mediation sessions.
By stipulation of the parties, the court ordered a comprehensive custody evaluation on July 14, 2023. The evaluation was conducted by Dr. Elena V. Sorensen, Psy.D. (California License No. PSY 24891), of Sorensen Family Behavioral Health, P.C. Dr. Sorensen conducted individual interviews with both parents, home visits at both residences, observation of each parent's interaction with the children, collateral interviews with childcare providers, school personnel, and family members, and age-appropriate assessments of both children. Dr. Sorensen delivered her evaluation report on October 6, 2023. The report's findings and recommendations are discussed in Section VII below.
Additionally, a forensic income analysis of Mr. Medrano's freelance earnings through Medrano Visuals, LLC was completed by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. Mr. Yamamoto's analysis examined Mr. Medrano's income tax returns, bank statements, and business records for the three most recent tax years and concluded that Mr. Medrano's three-year average annual income was $340,000, which figure was used for purposes of the DissoMaster guideline child support calculation as discussed in Section III.D below.
The first mediation session was held on November 17, 2023, and the second mediation session was held on December 15, 2023, both before the Honorable Constance M. Yee (Ret.). As set forth in detail in Section III below, those sessions produced agreement on the majority of the contested issues in this case.
Mr. Medrano is represented throughout these proceedings by Gwendolyn R. Kwan (California State Bar No. 218453) and Benjamin T. Okafor (California State Bar No. 312776) of Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels LLP, located at 4400 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91505.
III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES RESOLVED IN SESSIONS 1 AND 2
Before addressing the remaining open issues, Ms. Fonseca wishes to highlight the significant progress that the parties have achieved through the mediation process. The issues resolved in Sessions 1 and 2 represent the framework of a comprehensive custody and parenting plan, and Ms. Fonseca is grateful for the Mediator's skillful facilitation of these agreements. The following is a summary of each resolved issue.
A. Legal Custody — Resolved
The parties have agreed to joint legal custody of both minor children. Under this arrangement, both parents will share the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of Isabela and Mateo.
Significantly, the parties have further agreed that Ms. Fonseca shall have tie-breaking authority on educational decisions, including but not limited to school selection, enrollment, withdrawal, tutoring, and decisions regarding special education services or academic accommodations. This agreement was reached during Session 2 after Mr. Medrano withdrew his objection to the tie-breaking provision. Ms. Fonseca appreciates Mr. Medrano's willingness to agree to this arrangement, which reflects the practical reality that Ms. Fonseca has served as the primary point of contact with Ridgeview Academy since the children's enrollment and has taken the lead on educational planning and advocacy throughout the children's lives.
On all other major decisions — including healthcare, extracurricular activities, and religious upbringing — the parties will have equal authority, with neither parent empowered to act unilaterally. In the event of a disagreement on any such decision, the parties have agreed to consult with the Parenting Plan Coordinator (discussed in Section IV.C below) before seeking court intervention.
B. Physical Custody and Timeshare — Resolved
The parties have agreed to joint physical custody, with the primary residence of both children established with Ms. Fonseca at her home located at 1742 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 3A, Studio City, California 91604. This arrangement reflects the children's existing living situation and ensures continuity with their current school, neighborhood, friends, and daily routines.
The agreed-upon timeshare during the school year is as follows: Ms. Fonseca will have 232 overnights per year, and Mr. Medrano will have 133 overnights per year, resulting in an approximate 63.6% / 36.4% split in favor of Ms. Fonseca. This timeshare was carefully negotiated over both sessions and reflects the children's established patterns, Mr. Medrano's work schedule (which periodically requires extended travel for on-location shoots), and the recommendations of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation.
For the summer schedule, covering the ten-week summer break (approximately 70 days), the parties have agreed to an equal 50/50 split — 35 overnights with each parent. The parties recognize that the summer period offers greater flexibility for both parents and provides an opportunity for Mr. Medrano to have extended, uninterrupted time with the children.
This revised timeshare proposal was formally transmitted by Calderwood & Harkness to Kwan, Delacroix & Samuels on December 22, 2023, following Session 2. Mr. Medrano indicated preliminary acceptance of the proposal during post-Session 2 discussions between counsel, and Ms. Fonseca understands that Mr. Medrano's acceptance remains subject to the resolution of the remaining open issues at Session 3.
C. Holiday and Vacation Rotation — Resolved
The parties have agreed to an alternating even/odd year schedule for the major holidays and school vacations. This rotation applies to Thanksgiving, winter break (including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Year's), spring break, and each parent's designated holidays (including, for example, Mother's Day, Father's Day, the children's birthdays, and each parent's birthday). The specific dates, exchange times, and pickup/drop-off logistics have been detailed in a draft Holiday & Vacation Schedule, which will be attached as Exhibit A to the final Agreement. The draft was circulated between counsel following Session 2 and is substantially in final form, subject only to minor conforming edits.
D. Base Child Support — Resolved
The parties have agreed on the base child support obligation, which was calculated using the DissoMaster guideline formula and then adjusted by mutual agreement as described below.
Ms. Fonseca's gross monthly income is $72,500, based on her total annual compensation of $870,000 from Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. This total compensation consists of a base salary of $485,000, average annual bonus compensation of $210,000 (based on a three-year average of actual bonus payments), and annual restricted stock unit ("RSU") vesting valued at approximately $175,000. These figures are well-documented and were not disputed by Mr. Medrano or his counsel.
Mr. Medrano's imputed gross monthly income is $28,333, based on an imputed annual income of $340,000. This figure represents the three-year average of Mr. Medrano's annual income as determined by the forensic income analysis conducted by Harold K. Yamamoto, CPA/ABV/CFF, of Yamamoto Brace & Liu, LLP. The use of a three-year average was necessary because Mr. Medrano's income as a freelance cinematographer fluctuates significantly from year to year, and a single-year snapshot would not provide an accurate basis for the guideline calculation.
The combined gross monthly income of the parties is therefore $100,833.
The DissoMaster guideline calculation, using the agreed-upon 63.6% / 36.4% timeshare and two minor children, yields a guideline child support amount of $1,274 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano.
However, the parties have agreed to stipulate to a child support amount of $1,100 per month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano, representing a deviation of $174 per month below guideline. This below-guideline deviation is justified under California Family Code section 4057(b) by Mr. Medrano's agreement to bear a higher share of extracurricular and enrichment activity costs — specifically, the 60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca split that is discussed as a remaining open issue in Section IV.A below. The below-guideline support and the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement are intended to operate as reciprocal components of a single, integrated economic agreement.
The parties have further agreed that child support shall be subject to annual review on the anniversary of the date of the court order, or upon a material change in circumstances. For purposes of this provision, a material change in circumstances includes a change in either party's income exceeding 15% or a change in the timeshare arrangement exceeding 10%.
E. Education Costs — Resolved
Both children are currently enrolled at Ridgeview Academy, located at 4515 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. Isabela is in the second grade, and Mateo is in the pre-kindergarten program. Ridgeview is a well-regarded independent school that both parents selected together prior to the dissolution, and both parents are actively involved in the school community.
The current annual tuition for Isabela is $32,400, and the current annual tuition for Mateo is $26,800, for a total annual tuition of $59,200. The parties have agreed to split tuition costs as follows: 70% Ms. Fonseca ($41,440 per year) / 30% Mr. Medrano ($17,760 per year). This split roughly corresponds to the proportionate income ratio between the parties and was agreed upon during Session 1 without significant dispute.
Additionally, the parties have agreed that the children will remain enrolled at Ridgeview Academy through the completion of elementary school unless both parents provide mutual written consent to a change in school placement. This provision ensures educational continuity for both children and aligns with Ms. Fonseca's tie-breaking authority on educational decisions.
F. Healthcare — Resolved
The parties have agreed that both children shall remain on Ms. Fonseca's employer-sponsored health insurance plan provided through Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. and administered by Veridian Health Insurance Co. This plan provides comprehensive medical, dental, and vision coverage for the children at no additional premium cost to Ms. Fonseca beyond her standard employee contribution, making it the most cost-effective coverage option available to the family.
For unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health expenses — including copayments, deductibles, and expenses not covered by the insurance plan — the parties have agreed to a split of 70% Ms. Fonseca / 30% Mr. Medrano, consistent with the proportionate income ratio and the tuition cost-sharing arrangement. Each parent shall submit documentation of unreimbursed expenses to the other parent within 30 days of incurring the expense, and reimbursement shall be made within 30 days of receipt of documentation.
IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3
Despite the extensive progress summarized above, three discrete issues remain unresolved as of the close of Session 2. Ms. Fonseca believes that the parties' positions on each of these issues are close, and that resolution is achievable within a single mediation session. Ms. Fonseca presents her final proposals on each issue below, together with the background necessary to contextualize the remaining areas of disagreement.
A. Extracurricular and Enrichment Activity Cost-Sharing
1. Background of the Dispute.  The allocation of costs for extracurricular and enrichment activities has been a recurring topic of discussion throughout this mediation. During Session 1, Ms. Fonseca proposed that extracurricular costs be split in proportion to the parties' respective incomes, which would result in an approximately 72% Fonseca / 28% Medrano division. This proposal was consistent with the income-proportionate approach adopted for tuition and healthcare expenses.
Mr. Medrano counter-proposed a 50/50 split of extracurricular costs. His counsel argued that because both parents participate equally in selecting and supporting the children's extracurricular activities, the costs should be shared equally regardless of the income disparity.
During Session 2, the discussion evolved significantly as the parties simultaneously negotiated the below-guideline child support deviation. Ms. Fonseca offered a 60% Medrano / 40% Fonseca split of extracurricular costs as a reciprocal component of the below-guideline support arrangement. In other words, Ms. Fonseca's agreement to pay $174 per month less than the guideline support amount is directly tied to Mr. Medrano's agreement to assume a disproportionately higher share of extracurricular costs. This structure ensures that the overall economic arrangement remains fair and balanced while directing additional resources specifically toward the children's enrichment.
At the close of Session 2, Mr. Medrano's counsel, Ms. Kwan, indicated that Mr. Medrano would accept the 60/40 Medrano/Fonseca split in principle but wanted a cap on quarterly expenditures to ensure that neither parent could unilaterally commit the other to unlimited extracurricular expenses. Ms. Fonseca agrees that a reasonable cap is appropriate and has incorporated one into her final proposal below.
2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal.  Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms for extracurricular and enrichment activity cost-sharing:
(a) Extracurricular and enrichment activity costs shall be split 60% Mr. Medrano / 40% Ms. Fonseca for activities costing up to $1,500 per child per quarter.
(b) Any single activity, or combination of activities, the cost of which would exceed $1,500 per child per quarter shall require the mutual written consent of both parents before enrollment. Neither parent may unilaterally enroll a child in an activity that would cause the per-child quarterly cap to be exceeded without the other parent's prior written agreement.
(c) The cap shall apply per child. Accordingly, the maximum quarterly expenditure subject to the 60/40 split without additional consent is $1,500 for Isabela and $1,500 for Mateo, for a combined maximum of $3,000 per quarter, or $12,000 per year.
(d) Activities in which the children are currently enrolled as of the date of the Agreement (including, by way of example, any existing music lessons, art classes, sports programs, or similar enrichment activities) shall be grandfathered and shall not count against the per-child quarterly cap for the first year following execution of the Agreement. After the first year, all activities, including grandfathered activities, shall be subject to the cap.
(e) For purposes of this provision, "extracurricular and enrichment activities" shall include, but not be limited to, organized sports leagues, music lessons, art classes, dance classes, language instruction, coding or STEM programs, scouting, summer camps (day camps only; overnight camps shall be treated as a separate category requiring mutual consent), and other similar programs or activities.
Ms. Fonseca believes this proposal is fair, reasonable, and responsive to Mr. Medrano's stated concern about uncapped expenditures. The $1,500-per-child-per-quarter cap provides meaningful protection against runaway costs while preserving sufficient flexibility to ensure that Isabela and Mateo can participate in the kinds of enrichment activities that both parents agree are important to the children's development. The grandfathering provision for existing activities ensures that the children are not disrupted in their current programs during the transition to the new arrangement. Most importantly, this proposal is inextricably linked to the below-guideline support deviation and ensures that Mr. Medrano has meaningful input on expenditure decisions above the cap while honoring the economic quid pro quo that underlies the entire support agreement.
B. Travel Notice Provisions and On-Location Work Protocol
1. Background of the Dispute.  During Session 2, the parties reached agreement in principle on the need for a formal travel notice framework to be included in the parenting plan. Both parties recognized that clear travel protocols are essential given their respective careers in the entertainment industry, which periodically require travel away from the Los Angeles area. However, the parties were unable to agree on specific parameters, and the issue was carried over to Session 3.
Mr. Medrano objected to Ms. Fonseca's originally proposed 45-day notice period for international travel, arguing that it was impractical given the short-turnaround nature of freelance film work. Mr. Medrano's counsel, Mr. Okafor, represented that Mr. Medrano frequently receives offers for international shoots on relatively short notice and that a 45-day advance notice requirement would effectively preclude him from accepting certain types of work, thereby impairing his earning capacity.
Ms. Fonseca appreciates Mr. Medrano's professional constraints but maintains that reasonable advance notice is essential to protect the children's stability and to allow the non-traveling parent to make appropriate arrangements. Ms. Fonseca's concern in this area is rooted in direct experience: as noted above, Mr. Medrano's seven-week on-location cinematography assignment in Vancouver, British Columbia, in early 2023 was accepted without advance coordination regarding the children's care. During that seven-week period, Ms. Fonseca was required to shoulder the entirety of the childcare burden, rearrange her own work schedule, and engage additional childcare support — all without any meaningful prior notice or discussion. That experience was a significant precipitating factor in this litigation, and Ms. Fonseca is determined to ensure that the final parenting plan includes clear and enforceable provisions to prevent a recurrence.
2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal.  Ms. Fonseca proposes the following travel notice and on-location work provisions:
International Travel (outside the continental United States):
(a) Either parent intending to travel internationally with one or both children shall provide a minimum of 30 days' written notice to the other parent, together with a detailed itinerary including destinations, accommodations, emergency contact information, and travel dates.
(b) International travel with the children shall further require the written consent of the non-traveling parent, or, in the absence of consent, a court order. If the non-traveling parent does not respond to a written request for consent within 10 calendar days, the request shall be deemed denied.
(c) This 30-day notice requirement represents a compromise from Ms. Fonseca's original proposal of 45 days' notice, made in recognition of Mr. Medrano's professional circumstances and the short-turnaround nature of freelance work in the entertainment industry.
Domestic Travel (outside California):
(d) Either parent intending to travel domestically outside the State of California with one or both children shall provide a minimum of 14 days' written notice to the other parent, including the destination, accommodations, emergency contact information, and travel dates.
(e) Domestic travel notice shall be informational only and shall not require the other parent's consent, unless the travel coincides with a scheduled custody exchange, in which case the traveling parent must make alternative arrangements for the exchange in consultation with the other parent.
On-Location Work Provision (applicable to both parents equally):
(f) If either parent accepts work requiring travel of more than 14 consecutive calendar days during that parent's custodial time, the traveling parent's custodial days occurring during the travel period shall transfer to the non-traveling parent. The non-traveling parent shall not be required to consent to the transfer; the transfer shall occur automatically upon notice.
(g) The traveling parent shall be entitled to make-up time equal to the number of custodial days transferred. Make-up time must be scheduled within 60 calendar days of the traveling parent's return, at times mutually agreed upon by both parents. If the parents are unable to agree on make-up time within 14 days of the traveling parent's return, either parent may refer the dispute to the Parenting Plan Coordinator for resolution.
(h) Notice of on-location work requiring transfer of custodial time must be provided at least 14 days in advance where practicable. In all cases, notice must be provided as soon as reasonably possible after the parent becomes aware of the work commitment. Failure to provide timely notice shall not excuse the transfer of custodial time but may be considered by the Parenting Plan Coordinator or the court in resolving disputes regarding make-up time scheduling.
Reciprocal Application:
(i) Ms. Fonseca expressly acknowledges that this provision applies equally to her. If her duties at Luminos Entertainment Group, Inc. — or any future employment — require travel exceeding 14 consecutive calendar days during her custodial time, the same transfer and make-up provisions shall apply. Ms. Fonseca does not seek any asymmetric advantage in this regard. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the children's custodial schedule is maintained and that extended parental absence is accommodated in a fair and predictable manner, regardless of which parent is traveling.
Ms. Fonseca believes this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between the realities of both parties' careers in the entertainment industry and the children's paramount need for stability, predictability, and consistent caregiving. The 30-day international travel notice period is a meaningful concession from Ms. Fonseca's original position and should be workable for Mr. Medrano's professional needs. The 14-day domestic travel notice period is informational and minimally burdensome. And the on-location work transfer provision ensures that the children are not left without adequate parental care during extended work-related absences while preserving the traveling parent's right to make-up time within a reasonable period.
C. Appointment of Parenting Plan Coordinator
1. Background of the Dispute.  During Session 2, Ms. Fonseca proposed the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator — a neutral professional who would serve as a resource for the parties in resolving day-to-day scheduling disputes, interpreting ambiguous or unclear provisions of the Agreement, and facilitating the make-up time arrangements contemplated by the on-location work provision. The concept of a Parenting Plan Coordinator is well-established in California family law practice and is particularly valuable in cases involving parents with demanding and unpredictable work schedules in the entertainment industry.
Mr. Medrano agreed in principle to the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator during Session 2. However, he raised two concerns that were not resolved during that session. First, Mr. Medrano expressed concern about the cost of the Coordinator, noting that coordinator fees can be substantial and that he did not wish to be obligated to pay a disproportionate share. Second, Mr. Medrano raised concerns about the selection of the Coordinator, preferring that the parties jointly select the individual rather than have one party make a unilateral nomination.
Ms. Fonseca takes both of these concerns seriously and has incorporated them into her final proposal below.
2. Ms. Fonseca's Final Proposal.  Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms for the appointment of a Parenting Plan Coordinator:
(a) The parties shall appoint Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT (California License No. LMFT 89412), of Ingalls & Cuevas Family Counseling, located at 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 630, Los Angeles, California 90024, as the Parenting Plan Coordinator.
(b) Dr. Ingalls is a licensed marriage and family therapist with extensive experience in high-conflict co-parenting facilitation, parenting coordination, and family dispute resolution. Importantly, Dr. Ingalls was recommended by Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan, who is familiar with Dr. Ingalls' qualifications and approach. Ms. Fonseca believes that Dr. Ingalls' endorsement by Minor's Counsel — a neutral party appointed by the court to represent the children's interests — should alleviate any concern that the selection was made unilaterally.
(c) The scope of authority of the Parenting Plan Coordinator shall be limited to the following:
(i) Assisting the parties in interpreting and implementing the provisions of the parenting plan;
(ii) Resolving day-to-day scheduling disputes that the parties are unable to resolve between themselves;
(iii) Facilitating make-up time arrangements under the on-location work provision set forth in Section IV.B above; and
(iv) Making recommendations (non-binding) to the parties regarding modifications to the parenting schedule to accommodate changed circumstances.
(d) The Coordinator shall not have authority to modify the substantive terms of the Agreement, including but not limited to the legal custody arrangement, the physical custody designation, the base timeshare percentages, the child support amount, or the cost-sharing allocations. Any modification of substantive terms shall require either mutual written consent of the parties or a court order.
(e) The cost of the Parenting Plan Coordinator's fees shall be split 50/50 between the parties, regardless of the parties' respective incomes. Ms. Fonseca proposes this equal split — rather than an income-proportionate split — as a gesture of good faith and to ensure that neither party is discouraged from utilizing the Coordinator's services by a disproportionate cost burden.
(f) The initial appointment shall be for a term of two years from the date of the court order approving the Agreement. At the expiration of the two-year term, the appointment may be renewed by mutual written consent of the parties for successive one-year terms.
(g) Either party may petition the court to replace the Parenting Plan Coordinator upon a showing of good cause, including but not limited to bias, unavailability, or a material change in the Coordinator's qualifications or practice.
Ms. Fonseca believes that the appointment of Dr. Ingalls will serve as a critical safety valve for the parties' co-parenting relationship, reducing the frequency and intensity of scheduling disputes and minimizing the need for costly and time-consuming court intervention. The 50/50 cost split is a meaningful concession by Ms. Fonseca given her significantly higher income, and the limited scope of authority ensures that the Coordinator serves as a facilitator rather than a decision-maker. The two-year initial term allows sufficient time to evaluate the arrangement's effectiveness while providing a clear mechanism for termination or renewal.
V. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT
In addition to the three open issues discussed in Section IV, Ms. Fonseca proposes the inclusion of a mutual non-disparagement and confidentiality clause in the final Agreement. While this provision was not a disputed issue during Sessions 1 or 2, Ms. Fonseca believes it is an essential component of any comprehensive agreement and wishes to ensure that its terms are clearly articulated.
Ms. Fonseca proposes the following terms:
(a) Confidentiality. Neither party shall disclose the financial terms of the Agreement, the contents of Dr. Sorensen's custody evaluation report, or any information exchanged during the mediation process to any third party, except to the party's respective legal counsel, tax advisors, financial planners, or as required by court order or applicable law. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement and shall remain in effect indefinitely.
(b) Non-Disparagement. Neither party shall make disparaging, derogatory, or defamatory statements about the other party, whether publicly or privately, in the presence of the children, to the children's teachers, caregivers, or healthcare providers, or on any social media platform or public forum. Each party shall use best efforts to ensure that their respective family members, friends, and associates also refrain from making such statements.
(c) Relationship to Sealing Order. This confidentiality and non-disparagement provision is intended to complement, and not to replace or supersede, the court's existing sealing order issued pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 et seq. To the extent that the sealing order provides broader protections, the sealing order shall control.
(d) Children's Privacy. Both parties recognize that the primary purpose of this provision is to protect the privacy and emotional well-being of Isabela and Mateo. The children should not be exposed to conflict between their parents, whether directly or through the dissemination of information about the family's legal proceedings to third parties.
Ms. Fonseca understands that Mr. Medrano has expressed agreement in principle to this provision during prior discussions between counsel, and she does not anticipate significant disagreement on this point. Ms. Fonseca includes the proposed terms here for completeness and to ensure that the Mediator has a full picture of all provisions that would be included in the final Agreement.
VI. SUMMARY OF MS. FONSECA'S COMPLETE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
For the Mediator's convenience, the following table presents a comprehensive summary of all terms — both those previously resolved in Sessions 1 and 2 and those newly proposed for resolution at Session 3 — so that the Mediator and both parties have a single-reference-point overview of the complete proposed settlement.
Ms. Fonseca submits that this comprehensive proposal represents a fair, balanced, and workable framework for the parties' co-parenting relationship. It reflects meaningful compromises on both sides and prioritizes the children's best interests at every turn.
VII. THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS FAVOR RESOLUTION NOW
Ms. Fonseca respectfully submits that the best interests of Isabela and Mateo strongly favor the resolution of all remaining issues at Session 3, rather than allowing this matter to proceed to a contested hearing.
Both children are thriving at Ridgeview Academy. Isabela is now in the second grade, where she has formed strong friendships and is performing at or above grade level in all academic areas. Mateo started the current school year in the pre-kindergarten program at Ridgeview and has adapted well to the structured school environment after an initial adjustment period. Both children benefit from the stability and predictability of the current arrangement, which has been in place since the temporary 60/40 custody order was entered on May 30, 2023 — nearly eight months ago.
Dr. Sorensen's comprehensive custody evaluation report, delivered on October 6, 2023, provides strong support for the proposed settlement. Dr. Sorensen found that both parents are fit, loving, and engaged, and that both maintain appropriate and nurturing home environments for the children. Dr. Sorensen recommended joint legal and physical custody with a timeshare arrangement consistent with the parties' proposed 63.6% / 36.4% split, noting that Ms. Fonseca has been the children's primary caregiver for the majority of their lives and that the children are firmly attached to both parents. Dr. Sorensen specifically noted the importance of stability and consistency in the children's schedules, particularly for Mateo, who is at a developmental stage where routine and predictability are essential to emotional security.
Minor's Counsel Tessa L. Brannigan has been actively involved in this matter since her appointment on June 22, 2023, and has met with both children, both parents, and the children's teachers and healthcare providers. Ms. Brannigan has indicated her support for the emerging settlement framework, including the timeshare arrangement, the educational provisions, and the parenting coordinator concept. Ms. Brannigan's support reflects her independent assessment that the proposed terms serve the children's best interests.
Continued uncertainty about the permanent custody arrangements would be detrimental to both children's adjustment and emotional well-being. Isabela, now six years old, is increasingly aware of the tensions between her parents and has, according to information provided to Dr. Sorensen, expressed anxiety about "where she will live" and "when she will see Daddy." Mateo, at four years old, is less overtly aware of the custody dispute but is sensitive to disruptions in routine and has shown signs of regression during periods of instability. Prompt resolution will provide both children with the certainty and security they need and will allow the parties to transition from the temporary order to a permanent, detailed parenting plan before the end of the current school year.
Moreover, the passage of time does not favor either party in this case. The issues that remain are narrow and susceptible to compromise, and there is no reason to believe that additional discovery, expert analysis, or judicial intervention would produce a materially better outcome for either party than the one that is achievable through mediation. A contested hearing would be expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging for all involved — most of all for the children.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
Ms. Fonseca has negotiated in good faith throughout this mediation process and has demonstrated her commitment to reaching a fair resolution by making meaningful concessions at every stage. Specifically, Ms. Fonseca has:
•  Accepted a below-guideline child support payment of $1,100 per month instead of the DissoMaster guideline amount of $1,274 per month — a difference of $174 per month, or $2,088 per year — in exchange for the extracurricular cost-sharing arrangement that ensures additional resources are directed toward the children's enrichment activities.
•  Reduced her proposed international travel notice period from 45 days to 30 days, a significant concession made in recognition of the realities of Mr. Medrano's freelance career and the short-turnaround nature of on-location work in the entertainment industry.
•  Agreed to a fully reciprocal on-location work transfer provision that applies equally to her, despite the fact that her position at Luminos Entertainment Group provides a substantially more stable and predictable work schedule than Mr. Medrano's freelance career. Ms. Fonseca's willingness to subject herself to the same transfer and make-up provisions reflects her commitment to fairness and her belief that the provision should apply equally to both parents.
•  Agreed to a 50/50 cost split for the Parenting Plan Coordinator, despite the fact that her income is more than 2.5 times Mr. Medrano's imputed income. An income-proportionate split would have required Mr. Medrano to pay only approximately 28% of the Coordinator's fees, but Ms. Fonseca has agreed to an equal division as a gesture of good faith and to encourage both parties to utilize the Coordinator's services without hesitation.
These concessions are substantial and reflect Ms. Fonseca's genuine desire to bring this matter to a close in a manner that serves the best interests of Isabela and Mateo. Ms. Fonseca does not make these concessions lightly, and she does not expect to be asked to make further material concessions beyond those already reflected in this brief.
The three remaining open issues — extracurricular cost-sharing, travel notice provisions, and the Parenting Plan Coordinator appointment — are narrow and susceptible to compromise. Ms. Fonseca's final proposals on each of these issues are responsive to Mr. Medrano's stated concerns and represent reasonable middle-ground positions that should be acceptable to both parties.
Ms. Fonseca respectfully urges the Mediator to facilitate a complete resolution of all remaining issues at Session 3 so that the parties can execute a stipulated agreement and submit it to the court for approval without further delay. The children deserve the certainty and stability that a permanent parenting plan will provide, and there is no reason that this matter should proceed to a contested hearing when the parties are this close to agreement.
Ms. Fonseca and her counsel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP are prepared to remain for a full session on January 19, 2024, and to draft term sheets or a comprehensive stipulated agreement on the spot if agreement is reached. We respectfully request that Mr. Medrano and his counsel come to Session 3 with the same level of preparation and commitment to resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Priya Anand, Partner
By: ________
Devon Archer, Lead Associate
By: ________
Nadia Petrov, Associate
777 South Flower Street, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-8100 Facsimile: (213) 555-8101
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca
Date: January 12, 2024
CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ. This document has been prepared solely for use in mediation proceedings before the Hon. Constance M. Yee (Ret.) and Pacific Coast Dispute Resolution Services. No portion of this brief, or any statement made in connection with this mediation, may be disclosed, admitted into evidence, or otherwise used in any judicial, administrative, or arbitral proceeding, except as expressly permitted by California Evidence Code sections 1119 through 1128. Receipt of this document constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to these restrictions.
Issue | Proposed Term
Legal Custody | Joint legal custody; Ms. Fonseca to have tie-breaking authority on educational decisions (school selection, enrollment, tutoring)
Physical Custody | Joint physical custody; primary residence with Ms. Fonseca at 1742 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Unit 3A, Studio City, CA 91604
School-Year Timeshare | 232 overnights Ms. Fonseca / 133 overnights Mr. Medrano (approximately 63.6% / 36.4%)
Summer Schedule | 50/50 split (35 overnights each over 70-day summer break)
Holidays & Vacations | Alternating even/odd year rotation per Exhibit A to the Agreement
Base Child Support | $1,100/month payable by Ms. Fonseca to Mr. Medrano ($174 below guideline of $1,274)
Tuition (Ridgeview Academy) | 70% Ms. Fonseca ($41,440/yr) / 30% Mr. Medrano ($17,760/yr); total $59,200/yr; children to remain enrolled through elementary school absent mutual written consent
Extracurriculars | 60% Mr. Medrano / 40% Ms. Fonseca; cap of $1,500 per child per quarter ($12,000/yr combined max); mutual consent required for amounts exceeding cap; existing activities grandfathered for first year
Healthcare | Children on Ms. Fonseca's Luminos/Veridian plan; unreimbursed medical, dental, orthodontic, and mental health costs split 70% Ms. Fonseca / 30% Mr. Medrano
International Travel | 30 days' written notice to other parent plus written consent (or court order)
Domestic Travel (out-of-CA) | 14 days' written notice to other parent (informational; no consent required unless coinciding with custody exchange)
On-Location Work Transfer | >14 consecutive calendar days during custodial time triggers transfer of custodial days to non-traveling parent; make-up time within 60 days; 14 days' advance notice where practicable
Parenting Plan Coordinator | Dr. Marcus W. Ingalls, LMFT; scope limited to interpretation, scheduling disputes, and make-up facilitation; no authority to modify substantive terms; 50/50 cost split; 2-year initial term
Confidentiality / Non-Disparagement | Mutual clause; no disclosure of financial terms, evaluation contents, or mediation information; no disparaging statements; complements court sealing order
Annual Support Review | On anniversary of court order, or upon material change in circumstances (>15% change in either party's income or >10% change in timeshare)

CONFIDENTIAL — FOR MEDIATION PURPOSES ONLY — NOT ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE § 1119 ET SEQ.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEF

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES RESOLVED IN SESSIONS 1 AND 2

IV. REMAINING OPEN ISSUES FOR SESSION 3

V. CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISPARAGEMENT

VI. SUMMARY OF MS. FONSECA'S COMPLETE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

VII. THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS FAVOR RESOLUTION NOW

VIII. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts