The Law Office of Edward Misleh
The Law Office of Edward Misleh
Skip to content
  • Home Page
  • Areas of Practice
    • Divorce Attorney
    • Domestic Violence Attorney
    • Child Custody Attorney
    • Child Support Attorney
    • Spousal Support Attorney
    • Community Property Attorney
    • Guardianship Attorney
    • Family Law Attorney
    • Adoption Attorney
    • California Attorney Blog
  • Resources
    • Forms
    • California Attorney Blog
    • Our Office
    • Website Search
    • Site Map
  • The Law Offices
  • Contact Us

-

Home » Areas of Practice » Divorce » Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof

Posted on October 25, 2019February 10, 2020 by edmisleh

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is the duty one party has at trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party.  One party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof.  When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side.  Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation.  The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim.  After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct.  There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal court.

The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action.


Preponderance of Evidence

In a divorce matter, if a transaction between spouses is later contested by one spouse claiming that he or she was disadvantaged, the burden is on the advantaged party to prove by a preponderance of evidence that there was no undue influence and that the transaction was not conducted in violation of his or her fiduciary duties.  Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 CA4th 336 (husband failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that wife’s signing of third quitclaim deed was freely and voluntarily made with full knowledge of all facts and complete understanding of its effect);  Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 CA4th 277, 296.

As the court concluded in Haines, the burden on the advantaged spouse is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

  • The transaction was freely and voluntarily entered into by the disadvantaged party;
  • With full knowledge of all relevant facts; and,
  • With full understanding of the consequences of the transaction.

See also Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 CA4th 1509, 1520 (presumption of undue influence by wife not rebutted regarding writing transferring husband’s community assets to wife when wife, inter alia, threatened divorce and obstruction of his relationship with children if he did not sign).  But see Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 CA4th 624, 631 (presumption of undue influence rebutted by preponderance of evidence;  couple agreed that wife would sign quitclaim deed in order to obtain lower interest rate on couple’s mortgage;  evidence showed that she acknowledged that title to residence would be taken in husband’s name alone).


Non-Parent Child Custody

The one exception to the preponderance of evidence standard is when a court finds that parental custody would be detrimental to a child which must be based on clear and convincing evidence before it may make an award to a nonparent over the parent’s objection.  Family Code §3041(b), (d);  Rich v Thatcher (2011) 200 CA4th 1176, 1179.

The “clear and convincing” standard is a finding based on “high probability,” a standard greater than preponderance of the evidence.  The term was later as “requiring that the evidence be ‘so clear as to leave no substantial doubt;  sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.'”  In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 C3d 908, 919.  Thus, in most cases, the nonparent will prevail only in unusual or extraordinary circumstances in which parental custody is clearly and demonstrably detrimental to a child.

However, if a court finds that a nonparent who seeks custody meets the criteria of Family Code §3041(c) by a preponderance of the evidence, this finding will constitute a finding that the custody to the nonparent is in the best interest of the child and that parental custody would be detrimental to the child—absent a showing by a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary.  Family Code §3041(d).  The criteria of Family Code §3041(c) are that the nonparent has assumed, on a day-to-day basis for a substantial period of time, the role of the child’s parent, fulfilling both the child’s physical needs and the child’s psychological needs for care and affection.  There is no requirement that the parent voluntarily abandoned the child to the nonparent for Family Code §3041(c) to apply.  In re Guardianship of Vaughn (2012) 207 CA4th 1055, 1070.

Once the nonparent has made that showing, then the objecting parent must demonstrate that parental custody is not detrimental and in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of evidence.  Thus, when the nonparent candidate for custody can demonstrate that he or she has met the criteria of Family Code §3041(c) for a substantial period of time preceding the adjudication of custody, the entire matter is determined by a preponderance of the evidence and not by the standard of clear and convincing evidence.

Whether the standard of proof is clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof is always initially on the nonparent to demonstrate that an award of custody to that nonparent is in the child’s best interests and that parental custody is detrimental.  Family Code §3041.  See also In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 CA3d 34, 40.  If a nonparent meets the requisite proof burden, the burden of proof shifts to the parent to prove that parental custody is in the child’s best interest and not detrimental to the child.  See Family Code §3041.


Overcoming Presumptions

The burden of proof is on the tracing spouse to keep adequate records to prove a tracing claim.  Estate of Murphy (1976) 15 C3d 907, 917, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Estate of Scott (1987) 197 CA3d 913, 919.  However, California appellate courts are inconsistent about the required standard of proof required to overcome the community property presumption of Family Code §760.  Some courts have applied the clear and convincing standard (see, e.g., Weingarten v Superior Court (2002) 102 CA4th 268, 277;  Gagan v Gouyd (1999) 73 CA4th 835, 843, disapproved on other grounds in Mejia v Reed (2003) 31 C4th 657, 669 n2).  Other courts have applied the less stringent standard of preponderance of the evidence (see, e.g., Marriage of Ettefagh (2007) 150 CA4th 1578, 1586;  Marriage of Nicholson & Sparks (2002) 104 CA4th 289, 293 (substantial evidence);  see also Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 C3d 604).  This is consistent with Evidence Code §115, which requires that when not otherwise provided by law, the appropriate standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.  In Ettefagh, after a careful review of the case law and an analysis of the interests at risk, the court acknowledged that the case law is “inconclusive” and concluded that a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient to overcome the community property presumption when determining whether contested property is one spouse’s separate property.

In Resolution Trust Corp. v Rowe (ND Cal, Nov. 20, 2007, No. C 90–20114 FMS (WDB)) 2007 US Dist Lexis 89263, the court extensively discussed the split in California authority and applied the preponderance of evidence standard as stated in Ettefagh.  The Resolution Trust Corp. court granted the judgment creditor’s motion for an order for a writ of execution on the assets of the judgment debtor held in a joint revocable trust with the debtor’s wife, holding that the trust brokerage account was all community property and there was insufficient documentary evidence to overcome the presumption of community property.


Child Removal

If the request is for the removal of the child from the child’s home, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that the grounds for removal in Welfare & Institutional Code §361(c) exist.  See Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(A).

If a petitioner other than the department files a Welfare & Institutional Code §388 petition seeking to modify an order that reunification services were not needed under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(4), (5), or (6) or to modify any orders related to custody or visitation of the child for whom reunification services were not ordered under §361.5(b)(4), (5), or (6), the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the best interests of the child.  Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(C).

If the person filing a petition under Welfare & Institutional Code §388(c)(1)(A) seeks to terminate court-ordered reunification services, the petitioner’s burden of proof is to show (Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(B)):

  • By a preponderance of the evidence that reunification services have been offered or provided; and
  • By clear and convincing evidence that a change of circumstance or new evidence exists for one of the following conditions (Welfare & Institutional Code §§361.5(b), (e), 388(c)(1)(A)–(B)):
  • The action or inaction of the parent or guardian creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §388(c)(1)(A)–(B);
  • The parent or guardian’s location is unknown;
  • The parent or guardian is suffering from a mental disability that interferes with his or her ability to successfully undergo the reunification process;
  • The child has been physically or sexually abused and conditions exist as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(3);
  • Through abuse or neglect, the parent or guardian of the child has caused the death of another child;
  • The conduct of the parent or guardian (involving severe physical abuse) has triggered the dependency jurisdiction of the court over the child under Welfare & Institutional Code §300(e);
  • The child has been found a dependent under Welfare & Institutional Code §300 because of severe sexual abuse or the infliction of severe physical harm to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent or guardian and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to attempt reunification services with the offending parent or guardian (see Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(6));
  • The parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling or a half sibling of the child as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(7);
  • The child was conceived by the commission of a lewd or lascivious act or through the continuous sexual abuse of a child (as defined under Penal Code §§288, 288.5), or by an act committed outside of this state that would be considered such an offense under California law;
  • The child has been abandoned or surrendered under the conditions of Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(9);
  • Reunification services have been terminated for a sibling or half sibling, or, after removal of a sibling or half sibling, the parent or guardian did not undertake reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(10);
  • Parental rights of a parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been permanently severed and the parent or guardian did not undertake reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the severance as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(11);
  • The parent or guardian of the child has been convicted of a violent felony under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(12);
  • The parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(13);
  • The parent or guardian of the child has advised the court that he or she is not interested in receiving family maintenance or family reunification services or having the child returned to or placed in his or her custody as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(14);
  • The parent or guardian has on one or more occasions willfully abducted the child or child’s sibling or half sibling as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(15);
  • The parent or guardian has been required by law to register as a sex offender under specified federal law as outlined under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(b)(16); or
  • The parent or guardian is incarcerated or institutionalized and, as under Welfare & Institutional Code §361.5(e), the court has determined reunification services would be detrimental to the child.

If the request is for visitation with a sibling who is not a dependent of the court, the court may grant the request unless the court determines that the sibling remains in the custody of a mutual parent who is not subject to the court’s jurisdiction or that sibling visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings.  Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(E).


Child Custody Modification

Other requests require a preponderance of the evidence to show that the child’s welfare requires the modification.  Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(D).  For example, if the department seeks to remove a child from de facto parents, the preponderance of the evidence standard is used instead of the clear and convincing standard, because de facto parents do not have the same rights as parents or legal guardians.  In re M.V. (2006) 146 CA4th 1048, 1059.  See Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(D).

The petitioner for modification has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the modification is warranted.  Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(h)(1)(D);  In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 C4th 398, 415;  Nahid H. v Superior Court (1997) 53 CA4th 1051, 1068.  See In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 CA4th 519, 527.  When the department seeks to terminate a parent’s visitation rights, the court must decide whether visitation would be detrimental to the child by using the preponderance of the evidence standard.  In re D.B. (2013) 217 CA4th 1080, 1089 (standard applied at post reunification phase);  In re Manolito L. (2001) 90 CA4th 753, 760 (standard applied pending selection and implementation hearing).  The grounds on which the court may grant a Welfare & Institutional Code §388 petition are articulated in Cal Rules of Ct 5.570(e).


CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT

321-951-9164

For more information on burden of proof and how it applies to divorce actions, click on one of the following links:

Divorce Process

Simple Divorce

Divorce Forms

California Legal Separation

Annulment

Simple Divorce

Inexpensive Divorce

Understanding Divorce

Military Divorce

Putative Spouse

California Divorce Process

Ex Parte Relief

California Divorce Attorney

California Family Code

Law Offices of Edward Misleh

Web Site Search

This disclaimer provides that any information provided on this website by The Law  Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is strictly informational and should not be interpreted or considered as legal advice.  If you have a legal concern, you should contact our office to speak with a licensed California Attorney.  Delaying to contact an attorney could result in harm to your interests.

Attorney-Client Relationship

No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. As a matter of policy, The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC.

Contacting us by telephone, email or other means, or transmitting information to us, will not establish an attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client relationship can only be established after we have determined that we are able and willing to accept the engagement and we have entered into a written engagement agreement. Until then, do not send any confidential information to us unless we specifically request it. Information communicated without such authorization may not be treated as confidential, secret or otherwise be protected from disclosure, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC will not be precluded from representing parties adverse to the sender of such information in any matter.

No Legal Advice Intended

This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems.

No Guarantee of Results

Many of the practice summaries and individual attorney biography on this website describe results obtained in matters handled for The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC clients. These descriptions are meant only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorney. They are not intended as a guarantee that the same or similar results can be obtained in every matter undertaken by our attorney; and, you should not assume that a similar result can be obtained in a legal matter of interest to you. The outcome of a particular matter can depend on a variety of factors—including the specific factual and legal circumstances, the ability of opposing counsel, and, often, unexpected developments beyond the control of any client or attorney.

Third Party Websites

As a convenience, this website may provide links to third-party websites. Such linked websites are not under the control of The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites.

No Warranty or Liability

The information in this site is provided “AS-IS,” without representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any representation or warranty as to suitability, reliability, applicability, accuracy, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, result, outcome or any other matter. We do not represent or warrant that such information is or will be up-to-date, complete or accurate, or free from errors, viruses, spyware, malware, adware, worms or other malicious code, or will function to meet your requirements.

You agree that we are not liable to you or others in any way for any damages of any kind or under any theory arising from this site, your access to or use of or reliance on the information in this site, including, but not limited to, liability or damages under contract, tort or other theories or any damages caused by lost data, malicious code, denials of service (including computer crashes), business interruption or other commercial damages or losses, even if we may have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Authorized Practice of Law

The jurisdiction in which our attorney is licensed to practice is in the State of California. The ability of our attorney to engage in any activities on behalf of a client outside that attorney’s state of licensure is subject to state statutes and professional codes and court rules. The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not seek, and this website is not intended to solicit, legal employment outside our attorney’s states of licensure that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Intellectual Property Owned by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC

Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks, photographs and other artwork, video clips, and written materials used in this site are protected by copyright laws and are owned or licensed by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. You may download information from our site for your temporary, personal, non-commercial use only. None of these items may be copied, reproduced, downloaded, posted, transmitted, broadcast or otherwise distributed in any manner without our prior written consent.

Privacy Policy
Site Map
Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.
We gladly accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express.
Copyright 2023 The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites