Split Decisions: Should Hiding Income Cost You Custody?

Can hiding money during a divorce affect child custody?

In this episode of Split Decisions, veteran family law attorneys Tim Miranda and Carlos Tavares battle it out in a mock courtroom debate over one explosive custody dispute: a divorced father wants more parenting time, but the mother alleges he secretly hid income from a side consulting business and took the children out of state without permission.

Should financial dishonesty impact custody rights?
Or should the court focus solely on the best interests of the children?

Watch both sides argue the case as these experienced family law attorneys break down the legal strategy, custody standards, and real-world consequences parents face in high-conflict divorce and custody battles.

In this episode:
• Child custody disputes & parenting rights
• Hidden income and financial dishonesty in divorce
• Out-of-state travel violations involving children
• Best interests of the child standard
• Co-parenting conflict and family court strategy
• Mock trial courtroom debate with family law attorneys

Who made the stronger argument?
Should a parent lose custody for hiding money?

You be the judge.

Subscribe to The AM Sidebar for more episodes of Split Decisions, where legal arguments collide and the audience decides the verdict.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:07

Every trial has two sides. Which one wins? You be the judge.

SPEAKER_01 0:11

This is split decisions where veteran divorce attorneys go head to head over real-life scenarios often seen in family court.

SPEAKER_00 0:24

We'll each have a few minutes to make our arguments.

SPEAKER_01 0:27

Today's case: a divorced couple with two young kids. The father says it's time for more custody. The mother, she caught him hiding income from his side consulting business.

SPEAKER_00 0:37

But there's a twist. The father also took the kids out of state without notifying her, violating their custody order. So who's really acting in the best interest of the children?

SPEAKER_01 0:46

I'm Carlos Tavares. I'll be representing Father.

SPEAKER_00 0:50

I'm Tim Miranda. I'll be representing the mother. She says intentionally hiding income isn't just dishonest. It's a betrayal of the court's trust and it impacts the kids' future.

SPEAKER_01 1:00

He says finances should have no bearing on custody. All right, let's get into it. Good morning, Your Honor. Today we're here on Father's motion to modify custody. As Father has set forth, his work schedule has become more flexible and now has more availability to spend more time with the children, and he seeks the court to modify the current order to a 50-50 custody, a 223.

SPEAKER_00 1:25

Thank you, Your Honor. That was a pretty cavalier request considering the current custodial timeshare. Talk about a quantum leap. I want more time 50-50 because I have the same job, but now I have a more flexible schedule. Why didn't you think about that in the past? Why did you have so little time? How do you have stability and continuity? You know, best interest of the child if you're trying to make such a large jump. What about what the therapist said? You have evidence that the therapist testified that the kids were anxious. They were concerned about this change, this request for a change. How do we process that? Where's the information that this is in their best interest? We have another twist here. That's the out-of-state vacation. So father has taken the kids out of state. Now it may be a vacation, maybe they liked it, but there's a court order and he violated that. This isn't a punishment proceeding, it's not enforcement. But the court has to consider what's in the best interest of the children. That order is in the best interest of the children. You made that order and he violated that. So he's acted contrary to their best interest. So again, to suggest that somehow it was a pleasure trip and he forgot, well, what happens next time he forgets? Let's talk about the side hustle, the extra money from the consulting business. I know it's a novel argument, but the court has to consider he's been underpaying child support because he committed perjury because he didn't include all of his income. How does that factor into the best interest of the children? Again, this isn't punishment. This isn't a socioeconomic argument that he should not have custody or not have visitation or should have something diminished because of his finances. The reality, though, is that if he's occulting income, he's not paying adequate support. That's deleterious to the children, that is not in their best interest. So as we go into this, he's a liar, he forgets about orders, then he disregards the orders, then he makes light of it. And on top of it all, it's just 50-50, so give it to me because there is no basis for that. He didn't carry his burden. The court should deny the request, keep custody as it is, and we'll sort out the child support in the next proceeding.

SPEAKER_01 3:42

Thank you, Your Honor. Um, opposing counsel raises a lot of very emotional arguments. Um, first of all, the payment of support is not before the court. Family Code 3556 makes very clear that a quote, a party's obligation to pay support is independent of that party's right to custody or visitation. In other words, support does not have any control over the analysis on custody and visitation. And the Supreme Court in Moffitt, v. Moffitt has reiterated that, and there's numerous cases that have held a very tight line with those two comparisons. Best interest of the child controls, period. Evidently, father took the kids to Vegas for an overnight. Fair enough. Made a mistake, didn't notify mother, no harm, no foul, everyone was fine. The therapist did tangentially, you know, say something about the kids being anxious. I would say that's probably based on having two parents in conflict, nothing more, nothing less. The policy of the state of California is the kids' rights to access to both parents. It's not the parents weaponizing the kids and you know, the children's custody and visitation against each other. So we can ignore both of them. The issue is what's best for the kids. State of California Income Child Psychology says these kids should have uh maximized access to both parents. You had a visitation schedule where dad had alternating weekends and midweek visitations. Dad now has a schedule where he can accommodate a 50-50 schedule. He should be allowed to do that, giving these kids equal access to both parents. Neither one of these parents is a perfect person. In Ray Marriage of Stalker, the court made very clear 1977-65 Calab III said custody should be awarded to either parent according to the best interests of the child. In determining where custody of children shall lie, the courts are not engaged in disciplinary action to punish parents for their shortcomings as individuals, nor to reward the unoffending parent for any wrong suffered by the sins of the other. In determining what is for the welfare and best interest, factors which must be considered are the desirability of maintaining stable physical and emotional ambient and the length of time that the child has been in the continuous actual physical custody of the parent when having such custody. In other words, my guy is an imperfect guy, but this is based on what's best for the kids. He's available, and the kid and the court should award those kids more access to father. Thank you, Your Honor. These are our cases. You be the judge. Should financial deception cost a parent their custody?

SPEAKER_00 6:27

Or should custody stay with a parent who's been the kid's day-to-day caregiver all along?

SPEAKER_01 6:31

Cast your vote in the comments or the poll and tell us who made the stronger case.

SPEAKER_00 6:36

This is split decisions with Tim Miranda and Carlos Tavares.

SPEAKER_01 6:40

Subscribe for more debates where the arguments collide and you decide.