Marriage of Saedi and Kadivar CA2/2

Filed 6/23/25 Marriage of Saedi and Kadivar CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re Marriage of HOUMAN B340089 SAEDI and KHADIJEH (Los Angeles County KADIVAR. Super. Ct. No. 19STFL00117) HOUMAN SAEDI, Respondent, v. KHADIJEH KADIVAR, Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melissa C. Lyons, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Claery & Hammond, Kai W. Lucid and Frederick M. Medill for Appellant. Moshtael Family Law and Daniel R. Knowlton for Respondent.  Khadijeh Kadivar (appellant) appeals from the family court’s order denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs against Houman Saedi (respondent) pursuant to Family Code section 2030.1 Appellant contends the court failed to make the required findings under section 2030 and should have issued a fee award because it found a disparity in income. We conclude mandatory findings and determinations under section 2030 were not made in the order denying attorney’s fees and costs. Thus, we reverse and remand. BACKGROUND The marriage dissolution proceeding Appellant and respondent married in January 2016 and divorced in 2022. There are two minor children from the marriage. The marriage dissolution proceeding was a multiday trial involving two phases. The first phase involved child custody and related issues. The second phase concerned property division, support, and attorney’s fees. Respondent was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children among other relief. Appellant was ordered to pay a total of $3,455 per month in child support and $58,374 for retroactive child support. Appellant was also ordered to pay respondent $311,861.31 in attorney’s fees under section 6344, while respondent was ordered to pay appellant attorney’s fees of $49,977.77 under sections 2030 and 2032. At trial, appellant was found to be a perpetrator of domestic violence, resulting in a rebuttable presumption under 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 section 3044 that joint physical or legal custody of the minor children was detrimental to their best interests. The family court found appellant failed to rebut this presumption. The court cited a domestic violence restraining order issued against appellant in November 2021 and amended in January 2022 to protect respondent and the children. The court also indicated there were two criminal protective orders issued against appellant in July 2019 and October 2019 and modified in December 2021 and August 2020, respectively, to protect respondent and the children. The court found appellant violated and committed further acts of domestic violence despite these protective and restraining orders. In addition, the court noted appellant failed to complete a batter’s intervention program, alcohol or drug abuse counseling, and an appropriate parenting class. In July 2023, appellant was incarcerated for attempted kidnapping and poisoning of respondent and the children. The criminal court remanded appellant to custody on a no-bail status pending her arraignment on the information. The attorney’s fees and costs proceeding In December 2023, appellant filed a request for an order to modify child support payments and for attorney’s fees and costs in connection thereto. In her request, appellant attested she was recently released from a four-month incarceration, during which she could not work. Appellant declared she could no longer work in the profession on which the original child support orders were based because her medical license had been suspended. Appellant stated she was forced to sell her house, had no income, and could not afford basic necessities for herself. Appellant maintained she had no assets or funds remaining to afford child support payments. Appellant attested respondent earned over $1 million 3 annually and could provide for the children without financial assistance. Respondent filed a declaration in opposition to the request for order. Respondent asserted appellant had assets available to ensure the parties mutually honored the terms of the judgment. Respondent maintained appellant quit her job immediately after being ordered to pay child support, thus causing the disparity of income