Legal Question in Family Law in California

Even obnoxious jerks deserve legal help so I will try to answer your nearly illiterate and very childish question. First off, it is you who does not understand that the words "vital information" have no useful or real meaning in Family Law, or law in general for the most part. The only meaning they have in the law is as a synonym for vital records, or vital statistics which are kept by public agencies and include births, deaths, marriages, etc. I guess they might have meaning in a medical malpractice or personal injury case, but really not as legal terms - they would be used in their medical meaning in that situation.

Apparently what you mean is "relevant information." The law deals in relevance not "vitality."

So, to answer your question as it should have been asked, which is whether those types of information are relevant, the answer is "maybe." It would depend on what kind of proceeding was pending in the Family Court and what issues were in dispute. The only proceding that the specific information you list would be relevant to would be a hearing to charge a spouse with imputed income instead of their actual income for child and/or spousal support purposes. In that kind of hearing, all of the things you list would usually be relevant. Of the four categories of information you list, however, I'm not clear what you mean by job applications in their field. If you mean job applications filed by the other spouse, that would only be relevant after a find work order had issued. If you mean number of applications compared to number of jobs in the field, that would be relevant to a vocational evaluation which must be conducted by an expert witness. Without it being presented by an expert in jobs and hiring, most judges would not allow it into evidence even though relevant.

Lastly, even though a jerk like you doesn't deserve it, I will go the further step of noting that this seems to relate back to a previous question as to wether it is "useless" to submit "vital information" to the judge. The first issue in answering that question is whether the information is relevant. It is always useless to submit irrelevant information to the court. Without knowing what the proceeding is in the court an what the disputed issues are, it is impossible for any attorney to even begin to say what would or would not be relevant. The information you mention above would be irrelevant unless there is a motion pending to impute income to one spouse rather than take actual current income for support purposes.

Even if relevant, it is useless to submit information that is not admissible evidence under the Evidence Code.

Lastly, it is usually but not always useless to submit information that is untimely under the rules of procedure for the type of proceeding in question. Some judges cut a little slack, others don't.

It is always useless to submit information if there is not even any pending proceeding at all. That especially includes submitting after a ruling against you has already been issued, unless you qualify for a motion for reconsideration (which are almost never granted because the evidence must not have been previously submitted AND it must not have been possible to submit it at the original hearing).

Now, say you're sorry for being a ranting jerk to all the nice lawyers and go back to your crayons. And if you want to ask anymore questions, try asking Miss Mary Ann to help you write coherant ones next time, so you don't have another tantrum and remove any shred of doubt we may have as to why you are in the middle of a divorce.

Was this a question or a rant in the form of haiku?

ROFL! but, nah, that's not haiku. Way too many on (only 17 on in haiku), no kigo at all, and seems to be almost entirely made up of kiregi instead of having a single defining kiregi.