California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Binette v. Binette (In re Binette), 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 354, 24 Cal.App.5th 1119 (Cal. App. 2018):
The February 16, 2017, proceeding at issue in the present case did not involve a contested marital dissolution trial, as was the issue in Elkins . It involved a hearing that falls under section 217, which gives the parties the right to present live testimony instead of relying on declarations. However, section 217 does not mandate live testimony when the parties indicate their desire to rely solely on declarations. Rather, the right to live testimony may be forfeited. ( Mendoza v. Ramos (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 680, 687, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 ( Mendoza ).) The Mendoza case involved a child support action, in which the father argued that the trial court improperly denied him the right to cross-examine the mother at a hearing on his petition. (
[235 Cal.Rptr.3d 361]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.