Hon. Stephen M. Pulido (Ret.)

• Twenty (20) day child custody matter concerning sexual abuse allegations of parties’ minor daughter. Numerous allegations were made by Mom against Dad. Multiple experts testified regarding the allegations from two schools of thought regarding alleged sexual abuse of minor children.
• Case involved “CALICO” interviews of minor child. Court appointed an expert under Evidence Code §730 and Family Code §3118. Father was a physician and Mom was a psychologist. Case drew worldwide attention based on the “two camps” of sexual abuse theories.
• Presided over numerous child custody relocation cases over the years with proposed moves to Oregon, Florida, Kansas, Southern California, Connecticut, Virginia, Oklahoma, Washington D.C., Minnesota, Texas, Georgia, Italy, England, Japan, as well as other areas throughout the United States and the world.
• Presided over a high-profile child custody, timeshare and relocation case involving Father, a professional football player who lived in Georgia and Mother, who lived in California. Case involved the issue of the application of the Family Code § 3044 presumption against Mother and the dynamics of Father’s football schedule on ordering a custody/timeshare arrangement.
• Presided over multiple child abduction cases involving different states and countries. As an attorney, represented clients involved in said cases. Represented Mom who took her two sons to another state based upon her belief that Father was abusing the children. Mother and sons were found by the television show “Unsolved Mysteries” and returned to California.

• Child abduction case involving Mother whose daughter was taken out of the crib at a young age by her brother and sister-in-law without Mother’s knowledge or consent. Mother did not see her daughter for seven (7) years, until through very strange circumstances a friend of Mother’s learned where the child was located up in Humboldt County. The case was filed in Alameda County, but it was discovered that the brother and sister-in-law had obtained guardianship of the child seven years ago without notice to Mother.
• Case involving a request to terminate the guardianship in Humboldt County. After a lengthy contested trial, the guardianship was terminated, and the child was returned to Mother’s custody.

view all

• Presided over numerous cases involving post-judgment spousal support which involved the weighing of the factors in Family Code § 4320, as well as Family Code §§ 4321, 4322, 4323, and 4325, and/or a combination thereof. Also presided over cases involving Family Code §§ 4331 (Vocational Evaluation), 4332 (MSOL), Imputation of Income, 4339 (Security for Payment of Support).

• Presided over hundreds of child support cases over the years, including cases involving:
  - Guideline Support
  - Deviations From Guideline Support (including many “high earner cases)
  - Adult Child Support
  

• Presided over many cases involving the character, value, and division of property, with issues involving:
  - Stock options/employment benefits
  - Transmutation
  - Presumption Of undue influence/breach of fiduciary duties
  - Real property (residential, rentals, commercial)
  - Business entities (cases involving law practices, dental practices, medical practices, C-Corps, S-Corps, working ranches, construction companies, and many others)
  - Retirement benefits
  - Omitted assets
  - High asset cases
  - Debts and obligations
• Presided over case involving Gilmore rights where UC professor didn’t want to retire, and his spouse wanted to collect her community share of the retirement benefits. Case involved two well-respected actuaries. UC Retirement System did not recognize Gilmore benefits and would not pay spouse her share directly from plan. Husband was ordered to pay spouse directly. Subsequently, the UC Retirement System began recognizing Gilmore rights and paying spouses directly.
• Death of spouse cases
  - When death occurred before termination of marital status
  - When death occurred after termination of marital status

• Presided over many cases with “parentage” issues, including cases involving “biological” parents, “presumed” parents, and surrogacy cases.
• Most significant case involved two urologists who worked together and had no romantic relationship. Mom was single. Dad was in a same-sex relationship. Mom asked Dad if he would donate sperm for her to become pregnant. He agreed and they prepared their own “Sperm Donation Agreement”. Mom became pregnant. Mom immediately involved Dad in pregnancy. Their employer gave them a baby shower. Dad was present at child’s birth. Dad and Mom began sharing custody of child from the child’s birth. Mom and Dad’s partner got into an argument and Mom stopped allowing Dad to see child. Mom attempted to rely on the “Sperm Donation Agreement” to deny Dad time with now two-year-old child. Dad filed Parentage action. Court holds that “Sperm Donation Agreement” was not legally enforceable and Mom was estopped from enforcing the “agreement”. Court found Dad to be the parent and awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of the child. The parties returned to Court many times over the years.

• Presided over dozens of ‘date of marital separation’ cases, primarily when said issue was the sole issue before the Court, having been bifurcated from the other issues in the case. All the cases came with their unique set of facts and circumstances.
• Presided over a case that was initially filed in 2008 by Wife who alleged a date of marital separation of June 1, 2006. When the Petition was filed, Wife, Husband and children were living in the family residence. Husband claimed a date of marital separation initially in 2009, then in 2011, when Wife moved out of the family home.

• Presided over multiple putative spouse cases over the years, all with their unique set of facts and circumstances. In each case, the Court applied the factors in Family Code § 2251 and relevant case law.
• Handled a putative spouse case involving a Wife who believed that she was legally married after she and her fiancé acquired a marriage license. The case was tried over a number of days with numerous witnesses and layers of evidence, including a handwriting expert.

• As the Supervising Judge of Family Law in 2007, 2008, and 2009, handled all adoptions in Alameda County, except for the adoptions conducted in Juvenile Dependency.
• Handled many petitions to terminate parental rights, both contested and uncontested. The contested matters usually required lengthy hearings with many witnesses, including social services workers. In many cases, counsel were appointed for the minor and/or a parent.

• As a Family Law Attorney for 28 years, drafted many pre-marital and post-marital agreements and advised many clients regarding them.
• As a Family Law Judge for 18 years, presided over numerous trials where one party was challenging the validity and/or enforceability of a pre-marital agreement or post-marital agreement.
• Tried a case involving a post-marital agreement in which the two spouses entered into and signed a post-marital agreement, after both consulting with an attorney of their own choosing. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, one spouse was given most of the community property in exchange for a spousal support waiver. This case involved a long-term marriage with children. It was a lengthy trial with each party represented by counsel. One party was the “breadwinner” and the other party was the “homemaker”. Credibility was a very important factor in the Court’s decision.

• Over the years as a Family Law Judge and Family Law Attorney, handled many cases with jurisdictional issues, including issues involving minor children and UCCJA and UCCJEA.
• Presided over recent cases involving jurisdictional issues between California/Japan and California/India. Both cases were case specific and involved the application of very specific statutes and relevant case law.