Day: September 23, 2026

When a family business is community property or contains a community interest, the court must divide its value fairly. Because former spouses often cannot continue operating a closely held company together, the business is commonly awarded to one spouse with other property or an equalizing payment going to the other.

Continued Joint Ownership May Be Impractical

An in-kind division works for many marital assets, but it may be unsuitable for a closely held business. Divorce-related conflict can interfere with management, employees, customers, credit, and long-term planning.

The court generally seeks a result that preserves value without forcing former spouses into an unworkable business partnership.

The Operator Spouse Often Has an Advantage

A business may be awarded to the spouse whose knowledge, licensing, experience, customer relationships, or management skills are essential to continued operation.

A licensed professional practice generally must remain with the spouse legally qualified to operate it. The other spouse may receive an equalizing payment for the community interest.

The Business Must Be Valued Reliably

Valuation may require analysis of income, assets, debts, goodwill, owner compensation, tax returns, financial statements, market conditions, and personal expenses paid by the company.

Neither book value nor a tax-return figure necessarily establishes fair value. A qualified expert may be needed when the spouses disagree about earnings or goodwill.

A Forced Sale Is Not Always Appropriate

When both spouses are capable of operating the business, want it, and can afford to purchase the other’s interest, the court may value the company and award it to one rather than ordering a sale.

A California property division attorney can obtain business records, coordinate valuation, and structure a secure equalizing payment. The judgment should clearly address control, liabilities, taxes, records, guarantees, and the transfer of ownership so the former spouses are not left financially tied without adequate protections.

When a California court orders current child support, it also considers whether either parent has health insurance available for the child. Coverage may include medical, dental, and vision benefits and is generally required when available at no cost or a reasonable cost.

Either Parent May Be Ordered to Maintain Coverage

The duty is not automatically assigned to the parent paying monthly child support. The court reviews each parent’s available coverage, cost, plan terms, and ability to enroll the child.

If reasonable coverage is unavailable, the order may require either parent to obtain it when it later becomes available at no or reasonable cost.

Reasonable Cost Depends on the Additional Premium

Coverage is generally presumed reasonable when the cost to the providing parent does not exceed five percent of that parent’s gross income.

The relevant expense is ordinarily the difference between self-only coverage and the cost of adding family coverage, not the entire premium paid for the parent’s own insurance.

Insurance Is Separate From Base Support

The cost of maintaining the child’s coverage is generally addressed in addition to the guideline support amount. The support calculation may account for premiums actually paid.

Coverage may need to continue beyond an insurer’s ordinary age limit for a child with a qualifying physical or mental disability.

Both Parents Need Access to Insurance Information

The parent who does not carry the policy may still need membership cards, plan information, and the ability to submit claims relating to the child. Orders should address responsibility for enrollment, premium changes, notices, and lapses in coverage.

A California child support attorney can compare available plans, calculate the true incremental cost, and obtain an enforceable medical-support order. A parent should not cancel court-ordered coverage without an authorized modification, even when employment or insurance options change.