International lives often come with complex legal considerations. You’ve built a successful life with homes in both California and London. Your children attend school in the UK, but your business is headquartered in Los Angeles.
Families that span borders often find themselves caught between very different legal systems when a relationship breaks down. When a marriage unravels across two countries, the question isn’t just who gets what. It’s where those questions are allowed to be asked, and how the answers are reached.
This scenario plays out for countless international families each year. The truth is, the choices you make early in a cross-border family law issue can shape everything that follows: what happens to your assets, where your children live, and how protected your financial future really is.
England and Wales approach these issues through one legal lens. California uses another. In this article, we’ll walk through how each system defines residence, divides property, treats trusts, handles prenuptial agreements, and enforces judgments.
Jurisdiction: Who Gets to Decide the Case
In California, England, and Wales, the first hurdle is this: does the court even have the right to hear your case?
In California, jurisdiction depends on time. A spouse must have lived in the state for at least 6 months and in the county where they file for 3 months (Family Code § 2320). For custody cases, California courts follow the home state rule—usually the place the child lived for at least six consecutive months with a parent prior to filing.
In England and Wales, jurisdiction requires meeting one of several conditions under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.
These conditions include:
- One or both parties are habitually resident in England and Wales
- One or both parties are domiciled in England and Wales
- Having lived in England and Wales for at least 12 months (or 6 months if domiciled)
Domicile, which refers to the place you treat as your permanent home, even if you live elsewhere temporarily, is where you intend to stay long-term. Domicile can be established through birth (domicile of origin) or by physically residing in England with a genuine intention to make it your permanent home (domicile of choice). Establishing a domicile of choice requires both physical presence in England and the intention to remain there permanently, demonstrated through actions like purchasing property, establishing business ties, and integrating into local communities.
Habitual residence is where you live regularly, even if you weren’t born there. For example, if you’ve lived in England for the past year and built a life there, that may count as your habitual residence. Habitual residence typically requires living there for at least 12 months, though this can be reduced to 6 months if you’re domiciled there.
For child custody, English courts generally expect the child to be habitually resident in the country. This means the child should have a stable home life there, not just be visiting.
Which Country Decides?
Where multiple jurisdictions could potentially hear the case, courts may consider the doctrine of forum non conveniens to determine the most appropriate forum. In custody cases, this analysis is guided by the UCCJEA and, where applicable, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. If children are involved, where they reside will also be an important factor.
For families with ties to both regions, California’s residency-based jurisdiction requirements may allow for relatively prompt filing in some situations. However, whether California or England is the proper venue depends on the specific facts and applicable laws in each case.
Divorce Without Blame: How California and the UK Handle Marital Breakdown
Both jurisdictions allow for divorce without proving blame, but they apply it differently.
Since 1970, California has operated under a no-fault divorce system where neither party needs to prove wrongdoing. Courts only need to know that the marriage can’t be repaired—usually stated as “irreconcilable differences. This approach has minimized blame and acrimony in divorce proceedings for over five decades.
In England and Wales, no-fault divorce only came into effect in April 2022, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape. The process now avoids finger-pointing, letting couples end their marriage without one party having to “prove” wrongdoing. Still, once divorce is underway, the court has broad discretion in dividing property, considering contributions, future needs, and fairness overall.
Asset Division: Predictability Versus Judicial Discretion
How property is divided is one of the most critical differences between the two systems.
California offers predictability. The law views marriage as a partnership where assets and debts accumulated during the marriage belong equally to both people. This is called community property. Unless there’s a valid agreement or separate property involved, the court aims for an equal division under Family Code § 2550.
England and Wales take a more flexible view. Courts aim for fairness, not necessarily equality. Judges consider factors like financial and non-financial contributions, which means one person could receive more than half of the total assets if, for example, they have significantly greater caregiving responsibilities or limited earning potential.
How Prenups and Postnups Hold Up in the Two Courts
In California, both prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (during marriage) agreements are governed by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (Family Code § 1600) for agreements executed after January 1, 1986. These agreements can address property rights, both present and future, and other matters related to the marital relationship (though they cannot adversely affect a child’s right to support).
For these agreements to be enforceable, California requires:
- Complete and reasonable disclosure of assets, income, debts, and financial obligations
- Opportunity for independent legal counsel
- Voluntary execution without coercion
- Mental capacity to understand the implications
When these requirements are met, California courts generally uphold these agreements as written, providing certainty in financial planning.
In England and Wales, nuptial agreements carry persuasive weight, but aren’t automatically binding. For English courts to uphold a nuptial agreement, parties must have:
- Entered into the agreement freely and willingly
- Provided financial disclosure
- Received independent legal advice
- Signed the agreement at least 28 days before the marriage
If any of these are missing or the outcome seems unfair, a judge can set the agreement aside.
However, recent English cases demonstrate courts’ willingness to deviate from these agreements:
- In HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2, despite a prenuptial agreement limiting the husband to £365,000 from the wife’s £43 million estate, the court awarded him £2 million plus a house worth £2.5 million to meet his needs and those of their children.
- In AB v BH [2024] EWFC 125, the court determined that a prenuptial agreement providing approximately £800,000 to the wife from assets worth £50 million was insufficient to meet her needs, awarding her approximately £4 million instead.
This demonstrates that while both jurisdictions respect prenuptial agreements, California generally provides stronger enforcement when proper procedures are followed.
How Each System Supports Children Financially
In California, California operates under a statewide uniform guideline for child support calculation. Family Code § 4053 establishes guiding principles that include:
- Placing children’s interests as the state’s top priority
- Recognizing parents’ mutual responsibility for support
- Acknowledging each parent’s actual income and level of responsibility
- Ensuring children receive fair, timely, and sufficient support reflecting California’s high standard of living
The guideline calculation considers factors such as each parent’s income and the amount of time children spend with each parent. This creates a transparent, formula-based approach that leaves less room for unpredictability.
In England and Wales, child support is typically handled by the Child Maintenance Service if both parties live in the UK and the paying party’s income falls below certain thresholds.
If the paying parent earns more than £156,000 a year, or lives abroad, child support can be decided by a court instead of the Child Maintenance Service. Courts can order extra support to help the child live a similar lifestyle with both parents, especially in high-income families.
While both systems prioritize children’s welfare, the California guideline approach provides more predictable and consistent outcomes, which many families find helpful for financial planning.
Related: Child Support Calculator
Trusts and Wealth Protection in Divorce in England and Wales vs California
Trusts are often set up to protect wealth, but during divorce, they can come under scrutiny.
In California, if someone going through a divorce is the beneficiary of a trust, the court may be able to use their share of the trust to help pay for things like child or spousal support, or to divide property fairly. This usually happens by having the trustee (the person managing the trust) send payments directly to the other spouse, instead of to the beneficiary. The court might also place a legal claim (called a lien) on the beneficiary’s right to future trust payments.
However, the court generally can’t force the trust to sell assets to make payments—unless the beneficiary has the legal right to demand a distribution from the trust. While some trust interests may be considered community property under California Family Code §§ 760–761, those laws don’t provide a way for the court to directly take trust assets.
In England and Wales, courts can sometimes “look through” a trust, especially if one spouse is a beneficiary or if the trust seems to be used like their personal bank account. Even if a trust is set up offshore with rules (called firewall clauses) meant to block foreign court orders, English courts may still get involved if it’s necessary to reach a fair outcome.
For example, in a 2023 case (HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2), the court gave a spouse part of the assets linked to a trust, even though there was a prenuptial agreement, because the financial needs of the spouse and children were more important than the agreement’s terms.
Whether a trust holds foreign property, business interests, or investment accounts, its structure and jurisdiction can significantly affect whether courts treat those assets as protected or reachable in a divorce.
In England, Wales, and California, courts look beyond labels and assess how the trust operates, especially if one spouse appears to benefit personally. Getting proper legal advice early in the process is essential to understand whether trust assets may be considered part of the marital estate or available for support.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
What happens if you get a divorce or custody order in one country, but need it enforced in another?
California may recognize certain foreign court judgments under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. However, this law does not apply to judgments related to divorce, child custody, or spousal or child support. Instead, courts apply principles of comity—essentially a respect for the decisions of foreign courts—if they believe the foreign process followed fundamental fairness.
For custody cases, California uses the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). This law treats foreign countries the same as U.S. states, allowing custody orders to be enforced if the issuing country followed similar jurisdictional rules.
England and Wales participate in several international conventions, including the Hague Convention, which makes cross-border enforcement smoother in some cases. But in the absence of a treaty, things can be slower, and recognition is more discretionary.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Legal battles need not always unfold in courtrooms. Both jurisdictions recognize the value of alternative approaches.
In California, courts actively encourage various forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Family Court Services in many counties offer free mediation with trained mental health professionals who understand child development, family dynamics, and the effects of separation and divorce.
These mediation services help parents resolve custody or visitation disputes without formal hearings. For financial matters, private mediation and arbitration provide confidential forums for resolving disputes outside the public court system.
In England and Wales, parties must now submit a Form FM5 explaining that they’ve considered non-court dispute resolution before proceeding to litigation. The key differences between mediation and arbitration are clearly established:
Mediation facilitates communication between parties to reach a voluntary agreement, which becomes binding only when signed by both parties. It’s typically more flexible and informal than court proceedings.
Arbitration provides a neutral, expert third party to make a legally binding decision that both parties must follow. The process is more formal but offers confidentiality and can be more efficient than court proceedings.
Both jurisdictions recognize that alternate paths to resolution often preserve relationships, reduce costs, and provide more tailored outcomes than traditional litigation.
Bringing It All Together
International families face unique challenges when navigating family law matters across borders. Both California and England have sophisticated legal systems with distinct approaches to divorce, property division, child custody, and support.
California’s system often appeals to those seeking predictability through its established residency requirements, community property principles, stronger prenuptial agreement enforcement, and formula-based support guidelines. England’s system may better serve those who would benefit from judicial discretion in asset division or who have stronger ties to the UK.
For families with connections to both jurisdictions, strategic planning is essential. What might seem like a minor jurisdictional choice could significantly impact financial outcomes and family relationships for years to come.
Every family situation has unique nuances, and international family law contains layers of complexity beyond what we’ve covered here. If you’re facing cross-border family law issues, scheduling a case evaluation to discuss your specific circumstances is a wise first step.
Contact our office at 310-820-3500 to explore how California’s family law system might work for your international situation.
Disclaimer: This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every family law case is unique, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances. Legal representation with Provinziano & Associates is established only through a signed agreement.
For personalized advice, please contact our team at 310-820-3500 to schedule a case evaluation.
