DIGEST OF

GUAM SUPREME COURT 

CASES ON FAMILY LAW

Agreements

Attorney Fees

Child Custody and Visitation

Child Support

Grounds for Divorce

Guardianship

Jurisdiction and Procedure

Property and Debt Division

Separate Maintenance

Spousal Support

For all questions about Guam Divorces, custody or support, ask for attorney Ron Moroni. 1-866-472-1540.

***********************************

Agreements

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17 [28] Reconciliation of the parties alone is insufficient to support a finding of mutual rescission of a separation agreement.

Attorney Fees

CRUZ V CRUZ, 2005 GUAM 3 [8] A trial court's award of attorney's fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

CRUZ V CRUZ, 2005 GUAM 3 [9] A court may, in its discretion, require the husband or wife, as the case may be, to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife, or husband to ··· prosecute or defend the action. Courts consider various factors in determining what is “necessary” for a party to prosecute or defend the action. The “discretion of the trial court ··· is not arbitrary; it must be exercised along legal lines, taking into consideration the circumstances of the parties, their necessities, and the financial ability of the husband.

CRUZ V CRUZ, 2005 GUAM 3 [20] The Supreme Court as well as the trial court has discretion to award attorney's fees to defend or prosecute an appeal when the record before it provides enough information to determine these factors and what was “necessary” for a party to prosecute or defend the action.

CRUZ V CRUZ, 2005 GUAM 3 [25] Although the Supreme Court has the power to exercise our discretion and award attorney's fees  for the cost of this appeal, the trial court is the more appropriate forum to receive evidence and determine if party is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal, and if so, how much, as it is more familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and can make a more knowledgeable decision.

Child Custody and Visitation

FLORES V. CRUZ, 1998 GUAM 30 [12] Given the trial court's latitude granted through the broad discretionary language of 19 GCA § 8404 and the legislature's preference toward inclusion of both parents in the lives of their children, this court determines that not only can an award of joint legal custody be granted by Guam's trial courts, it is preferred. This preference, however, is always secondary to the best interest of the child.

FLORES V. CRUZ, 1998 GUAM 30 [14] Trial courts may look to the sexual behavior of a party for purposes of determining custody.  However, in order for such behavior to be relevant to a custody determination, it must be shown to have directly affected the child in an adverse manner. Similarly, in order to have a bearing on the case, prior misconduct must be shown to presently affect the interests of the child. Otherwise, if not linked to the child's interest, the matter should not be considered.

FLORES V. CRUZ, 1998 GUAM 30 [20] A joint custody arrangement absent minimal cooperation would not be in the best interest of a child.

FLORES V. CRUZ, 1998 GUAM 30 [21f the parties have demonstrated that they are reasonable and willing to give priority to the child's best interest, courts can determine whether the parents can separate and put aside their differences to cooperate for the benefit of their child. If the potential for cooperation exists, a successful joint custody arrangement can be achieved by instructing parents on what is expected and by setting ground rules of conduct.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [6] We review child custody orders for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind the best interests of the child.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [11] properly analyzed, joint custody is comprised of two elements--legal custody and physical custody.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [12] Joint legal custody carries with it the right and obligation to make long range decisions involving education, religious training, discipline, medical care, and other matters of major significance concerning the child's life and welfare. Joint legal custody means that both parents have an equal voice in making those decisions, and neither parent's rights are superior to the other.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [13] joint physical custody means the right and obligation to provide a home for the child and to make the day-to-day decisions required during the time the child is actually with the parent having such custody.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [14] Title 19 of the GCA, entitled "Parental Relations," reveals a legislative policy favoring the preservation of the "sanctity of family life" by "the inclusion of both parents in the lives of their children.  In light of this legislative policy, we have held that joint custody arrangements are preferred under Guam law.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [14]  Under Guam law there is a preference for both joint legal and joint physical custody arrangements. The preference for either type of joint custody, however, "is always secondary to the best interests of the child.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [16]  19 GCA § 8404,favors equality of time between the custodial and the non-custodial parent. However,  even if joint custody is ordered, a joint custody plan does not require an equal division of time between the parents. 

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [18] Joint physical custody does not require equality of time. Rather, joint physical custody requires that each parent get continuous physical custody for significant periods of time. 

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [19] Further, while substantial time, and not equal time, is all that is required under a joint physical custody plan.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [20] A trial court may deviate from an equal time arrangement if it is within the child's best interests and  the preference for joint custody "is always secondary to the best interests of the child."

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [20] When joint physical custody is awarded, the preference for equal time is also secondary to the best interests of the child.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [22] Where equality of time is not required, but preferred, under a joint physical custody plan, the lower court's decision to depart from an equal time arrangement should be made in accordance with the child's best interests.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [25] In considering a deviation from an equal time division when sole physical custody is ordered, the lower court is to consider the following factors, which are part and parcel of a finding regarding the child's best interests: the child's welfare, the parents' willingness to accept visitation, the parents' fitness, the child's schooling, the parents' jobs and the child's extra-curricular activities.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [29] The evidence identified above supports the trial court's determination that the child would find a more stable, and familiar, environment with Carter, and that the stability of the child's environment was in the child's best interests.

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8 [36] Because the court did not use the child's age for the purpose of holding that the child should be in the mother's care because of the age, but rather, considered the child's age to determine whether Father's proposed arrangement was within the child's best interests, the trial court did not apply the tender years doctrine.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [9] A court may modify a custody arrangement whenever the best interests of the child require or justify such modification.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [11] The trial court correctly determined that section 8404(h)  giving preference for equal time by both parents applies only when both the custodial and noncustodial parents live on Guam , however, even then joint custody is still preferred.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [13] Joint custody, however, does not require that each parent have equal time with the children.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [15] We review child custody orders for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard, the appellate court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.  Instead, it determines whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's decision.

MANO V MANO, 2005 GUAM 2 When no opposition to motion to relinquish jurisdiction or child custody was filed, trial court improperly failed to analyze the merits of whether or not to exercise jurisdiction, and thus, improperly relinquished jurisdiction  to Washington state over this case.

Child Support

GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17 [4] An order for child support is a final judgment as to any installment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the order.

GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17 [15] The orderly administration of justice demands that the lower court be divested of its jurisdiction to modifying a support order that is the subject of a pending appeal. This is not to say that there are no circumstances in which a child support order can be modified once an appeal is perfected; the lower court must simply obtain leave from the appellate court before making a modification. The lower court also retains jurisdiction to enforce the order.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [16] Once a court finds that a change in custody is necessary, the sole issue before the court is determining the best interests of the children, not the children and their mother, and not the children and their father.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [19] An award of child support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind the best interests of the children.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [20] In setting the amount of child support when a parent is wealthy, a balance must be struck between reasonable needs, which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the child or even in some cases infringing on the legitimate right of either parent to determine the appropriate lifestyle of a child.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [22] A child is entitled to share in the lifestyle of his parents. . However, "the purpose of a child support order is to provide for the care and wellbeing of minor children, and not to equalize the available income of divorced parents"

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [23] When the income of the parents exceeds the child support guidelines, as it does here, the court cannot simply extrapolate from the guidelines to determine the amount of child support. The trial court must make "factual findings to support setting the basic child support obligation beyond the Guidelines' cap. Moreover, "[t]hese findings must be more than a simple recitation by the court of relevant statutory factors; the court must relate those factors to the specific facts in the case before it. The court must show how the figure it is using reflects the reasonable needs of these particular children in these particular circumstances."

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [25] [A]n award for child support is for the child's current needs based on the child's appropriate standard of living and not for the purpose of saving portions thereof for future needs.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [26] Modification of a child support order may take effect any time after the filing of the motion to modify.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [27] Once the trial court determined that a modification was necessary, it was required to rule that the modification was effective retroactively to the date that the motion was filed without evidence justifying using a later date.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [5] An order for child support is a final judgment as to any installment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the order.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [16]  The ultimate goal in any child support case is to protect the best interests of the children. Unless otherwise limited by statute, courts are vested with discretion to set child support in the amounts necessary to effectuate that purpose. 

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [16] The court may exercise its discretion and use the Child Support Guidelines as a framework for setting child support in a shared custody case, as long as application of the Guidelines meets the reasonable needs of the children.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [18]While the court possesses the authority to use the Guidelines to calculate child support in joint custody cases, the AG cannot force the court to use the Guidelines in those instances. Thus, the provisions of the Guideline which seek to limit the court's discretion or bind the court to the Guidelines in shared custody cases are ultra vires in that they exceed the authority conferred to the AG

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [20] Child Support Guidelines shall continue to be valid and effective despite the failure of the AG to provide a biannual update.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [24] While contract principles are applied to settlement agreements, courts are unanimous in concluding that parents cannot by agreement limit or divest a court of its discretion in setting child support. 

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [24] A child's right to support from his or her parents is a right belonging to the child, and cannot be contracted away by his or her parents.  An agreement purporting to limit the court's ability to achieve that goal is void as against public policy. 

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [29] While the trial  court is not bound to apply the Child Support Guidelines in joint custody situations, its election to use the Guidelines as a framework for setting child support demands that deviations from the Guidelines be supported by findings. These findings must be more than a simple recitation by the court of relevant statutory factors; the court must relate those factors to the specific facts in the case before it. The court must show how the figure it is using reflects the reasonable needs of these particular children in these particular circumstances.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [30]  The lower court has discretion to impute income to a parent based on his or her earning capacity.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [32] In determining whether a parent has the opportunity to work, the court must determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that a party could, with reasonable effort, apply his or her education, skills and training to produce income.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [37] A parent ought to be able to pursue employment opportunities for the purpose of increasing future earning capacity and occupational fulfillment as long as that pursuit does not unreasonably compromise that parent's ability to provide support for his children.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [37] In child support case, the lower court abused its discretion by imputing income to Parent  without making any findings as to the detrimental impact that would be suffered by his children as a result of his change of employment.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [41] In child support cases, gifts may be included in a parent's gross income, but it is left to the court to determine whether an item is a gift and whether to include that gift in a parent's gross income.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [45] Modification of a child support order may take effect any time after the filing of the motion to modify. Setting the effective date is left to the discretion of the trial court, and thus we review such a determination for an abuse of discretion.

Grounds for Divorce

Guardianship

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [13] Permitting a guardian to relocate with a minor does not result in the de facto termination of parental rights.

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [16] The court cannot wholly delegate its authority over visitation to a separate entity. A court must be especially careful to refrain from delegating the right to visitation to a single individual who cannot be held accountable in the same manner as a government agency and who is likely to have interests adverse to the parent's.

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [17] The court, however, does not improperly delegate its authority over visitation by permitting the guardian to determine the time and manner in which visitation will take place. The court must determine whether visitation takes place, but may delegate "the responsibility to manage the details of visitation, including time, place and manner thereof." Id.

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [20] Moreover, "the right of visitation is subordinated to the best interests of the child.... Thus, if the trial court finds that visitation might endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development, visitation may be denied or restricted.

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [22] In determining the appropriate foster placement of a child, the child's best interests are the court's primary concern.... Where a parent is not attempting to gain custody himself, the preference to which any other applicant for appointment may be entitled must yield to the paramount consideration--the interest and welfare of the child. In re Guardianship of Aviles , 284 P.2d 176, 178-79 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1955).

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3 [24] The law does not require balancing the interests of the parent with those of the child. If the court finds that a parent cannot provide a safe home for the child within a reasonable amount of time, then the court must consider whether the proposed permanent plan is in the child's best interest.

Jurisdiction and Procedure

GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17 [4] An order for child support is a final judgment as to any installment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the order.

GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17 [15] The orderly administration of justice demands that the lower court be divested of its jurisdiction to modifying a support order that is the subject of a pending appeal. This is not to say that there are no circumstances in which a child support order can be modified once an appeal is perfected; the lower court must simply obtain leave from the appellate court before making a modification. The lower court also retains jurisdiction to enforce the order.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [15] We review child custody orders for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard, the appellate court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.  Instead, it determines whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's decision.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [26] Modification of a child support order may take effect any time after the filing of the motion to modify.

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14 [27] Once the trial court determined that a modification was necessary, it was required to rule that the modification was effective retroactively to the date that the motion was filed without evidence justifying using a later date.

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 GUAM 18 [5] An order for child support is a final judgment as to any installment or payment of money which has accrued up to the time either party makes a motion to set aside, alter or modify the order.

MANO V MANO, 2005 GUAM 2 When no opposition to motion to relinquish jurisdiction or child custody was filed, trial court improperly failed to analyze the merits of whether or not to exercise jurisdiction, and thus, improperly relinquished jurisdiction  to Washington state over this case.

PINEDA V. PINEDA, 2005 GUAM 10 [24] Guam 's service requirements are to be strictly construed - finding service by publication and mail to have been inadequate.

RINEHART V RINEHART, 2000 Guam 14 [28] The trial court abused its discretion in allowing party  to testify over the telephone.

Property and Debt Division

NAVARRO V NAVARRO, 2000 GUAM 31 [6] The trial court's division of community property is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

NAVARRO V NAVARRO, 2000 GUAM 31 [8] In a divorce action, a trial court has broad discretion to divide community assets in any fashion which complies with the provisions of the applicable statute

NAVARRO V NAVARRO, 2000 GUAM 31 [9] In divorce action it is not the burden of the trial court to prove valuation. This burden lies with the party who seeks the division of community property.

NAVARRO V NAVARRO, 2000 GUAM 31 [11] With no evidence whatsoever of the value of the tax liability, there was no rational basis for the trial court's decision assigning the tax liability to completely to one party.

RINEHART V RINEHART, 2000 Guam 14   [19] The court erred in reimbursing the community for the amount paid on Party's prenuptial student loan where  the community funds did not enhance the value of identifiable property.

RINEHART V RINEHART, 2000 Guam 14   [28] Based upon a plain reading of the relevant unambiguous statute, the trial court's decision to allow installment payments without interest was in error.

SINLAO V. SINLAO 2005 GUAM 24 [6] The trial court's “disposition of the community property and of the homestead ·is subject to revision on appeal in all particulars including those which are stated to be in the discretion of the court.” The Supreme Court may revise the trial court's division of community property, even where the trial court's action does not amount to an abuse of discretion. This authority to revise is to be used sparingly, however, and only where the trial court's division results in manifest unfairness.

SINLAO V. SINLAO 2005 GUAM 24 [11] The Supreme Court will first examine the trial court's overall distribution for any “manifest unfairness.” If it finds that the trial court's distribution was manifestly unfair,  then it will determine whether to exercise its authority to revise the division pursuant to 19 GCA § 8414, or remand the matter to the trial court for redistribution of the community property.

SINLAO V. SINLAO 2005 GUAM 24 [12] Guam 's divorce law provides for the equal division of property in divorces based on irreconcilable differences.

SINLAO V. SINLAO 2005 GUAM 24 [24] Therefore, rather than adopting a hard and fast rule such as mathematical equality, we believe that trial courts must have reasonable discretion in determining how the equal division of property should be accomplished, on a case-by-case basis.  We recognize that mathematical equality is desirable as a goal to ensure that each party receives an equal division of property; however, more often than not, mathematical equality is difficult to achieve. Rather, we believe the trial court should examine each case's particular circumstances and consider the overall equality of the award, and revision on appeal will only occur when the division is manifestly unfair.

Separate Maintenance

CAMACHO V CAMACHO, 1997 GUAM 5. [13] Under Guam 's statutory scheme, therefore, the requirements for maintaining a cause of action for separate maintenance are as follows: (1) there must be some alleged grounds for the action, generally the same as for a divorce action; and (2) the cause of action must be for the purpose of obtaining spousal support. Both of these requirements are expressed in 19 GCA §8402.

CAMACHO V CAMACHO, 1997 GUAM 5. [16] A party's consent declaration, stating that he did not intend to contest any portion of wife's Complaint against him for separate maintenance does not remove the statutory requirement that petitioner allege one of the specified grounds for the action.

CAMACHO V CAMACHO, 1997 GUAM 5.  [20] A decree of separate maintenance cannot be entered independent of any need for support.

Spousal Support

RODRIGUEZ V RODRIGUEZ, 2003 GUAM 8 [7] Guam law permits the modification of a support order “upon a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances. The burden to establish a substantial and material change of circumstances is on the moving party.

RODRIGUEZ V RODRIGUEZ, 2003 GUAM 8 [15] The elements of contempt are generally: 1) a valid order, 2) knowledge of the order, 3) ability to comply with the order, and 4) willful failure to comply with the order. However, “where the order is a family law order for payment of support or attorney fees, and the family law court has already determined the alleged contemnor’s ability to pay the underlying order, ability to comply with the order is not an element of the contempt. Instead, the inability to pay is an affirmative defense.

RODRIGUEZ V RODRIGUEZ, 2003 GUAM 8 [17] Even where property is exempt, an alimony debtor can be held in contempt where the otherwise exempt property evidences an ability to pay. Thus, the trial court properly considered  retirement withdrawal in determining his ability to pay.

 

******************

HOWERTON V HOWERTON,  2004 GUAM 8

MANO V MANO, 2005 GUAM 2

LANSER V LANSER, 2003 guam 14

In re J.L.L.P., 2004 GUAM 3

GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17

RINEHART V RINEHART, 2000 Guam 14

FLORES V. CRUZ, 1998 GUAM 30

LEON GUERRERO V. MOYLAN, 2002 Guam 17

SINLAO V. SINLAO 2005 GUAM 24

PINEDA V. PINEDA, 2005 GUAM 10

CRUZ V CRUZ, 2005 GUAM 3

RODRIGUEZ V RODRIGUEZ, 2003 GUAM 8

NAVARRO V NAVARRO, 2000 GUAM 31

CAMACHO V CAMACHO, 1997 GUAM 5.