California Family Law Concept: Gavron Warning

Concept: Gavron Warning

Citation: In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705; Family Code § 4330(b) (codifying the Gavron rule; see also Family Code §§ 4320 & 4336).

Explanation: A Gavron Warning is a notice given by a California family court to a spouse receiving spousal support (alimony) that they are expected to become self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. This concept originated from the case Marriage of Gavron, in which the court held that a supported spouse should be given fair warning that they are expected to seek employment or vocational training. The purpose of a Gavron Warning is to put the supported spouse on notice that spousal support is not intended to last indefinitely. It exists because California law **emphasizes that each party must make good-faith efforts to become self-sufficient**. In fact, Family Code § 4320 includes the legislative goal that a supported party should become self-supporting within a reasonable period (generally, one-half the length of the marriage unless the marriage is long-term). By giving a Gavron Warning, the court makes its expectation clear: after a period of support, the recipient should prepare to meet their own financial needs. This warning significantly affects spousal support orders – if the supported spouse fails to make reasonable efforts to find work or gain skills after being warned, the court may later reduce or terminate support due to that non-compliance. On the other hand, if no Gavron Warning was given, a supported spouse can argue they had no notice that they needed to become self-sufficient, and courts may be more hesitant to cut off support abruptly. Family Code § 4330(b) now explicitly permits judges to give this advisory in support orders (using “may advise”), and even notes that in a marriage of long duration (generally 10+ years, per § 4336) the court might decide a Gavron Warning is inadvisable. In practice, Gavron Warnings are commonly included in final divorce judgments or spousal support orders to encourage the supported spouse to work toward independence, while balancing fairness based on the marriage’s circumstances (e.g. age, health, and skills of the supported spouse). The Gavron Warning thus serves as an important tool to ensure that spousal support achieves its goal of temporary assistance rather than a permanent subsidy.

Examples:

**Mid-Length Marriage Example:** At the conclusion of a 7-year marriage, the court orders Husband to pay Wife spousal support for a number of years. The judge issues a Gavron Warning, advising Wife that she should use the support period to obtain employment or training. Five years later, Husband files to modify support. If Wife has made little to no effort to become self-supporting (for example, not seeking a job or any education), the court can find that she ignored the Gavron Warning. As a consequence of non-compliance, the court may terminate or sharply reduce her spousal support, since she was clearly warned that support was not intended to continue indefinitely.
**Long-Term Marriage Example:** In a divorce after a 20-year marriage, the supported spouse is in her late 50s with limited work history. The court might decide not to give a Gavron Warning, recognizing that expecting her to become fully self-sufficient may be unrealistic. Instead, the judgment may provide for ongoing support subject to future review. By contrast, if a Gavron Warning had been issued in such a case and the spouse failed to even attempt any employment over several years, the supporting spouse could later argue for a reduction by pointing to that warning. However, because no warning was given (deemed “inadvisable” due to the long duration and the spouse’s age), the supported spouse would have a stronger argument that support should continue. This example shows how courts use discretion: Gavron Warnings are typically given when the supported party is reasonably capable of becoming self-supporting, and they are withheld when circumstances make self-sufficiency an unlikely or unfair expectation.

Cases:

In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705 – The originating case for the Gavron Warning. After a 25-year marriage, the trial court terminated the 57-year-old wife’s spousal support because she hadn’t found work or training. The Court of Appeal reversed this termination, ruling that it was an abuse of discretion **because the wife had never been given fair notice that she was expected to become self-supporting**. This case established that a supported spouse’s failure to seek employment can justify modifying support only if the spouse was first made aware of that obligation (hence the “Gavron Warning”).
In re Marriage of Schmir (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 43 – Fourteen years after divorce, a husband sought to terminate spousal support even though the couple’s agreement had no end-date or Gavron warning. The trial court reduced support to $0, but the appellate court reversed. **It held that imputing income or ending support was an abuse of discretion without giving the wife reasonable advance notice and time to become employed.** In other words, the supported spouse must first be given a Gavron Warning (or equivalent notice) and an opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency before support is cut off for that reason.
In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225 – Here, the original support order assumed the wife would undergo retraining to increase her earning capacity. Three years later, she had done little to improve her employability. The court treated her **failure to diligently pursue retraining as a “change in circumstances” warranting a modification** of spousal support. Because there was an expectation (effectively a warning) in the initial order that she become self-supporting, her inaction justified the trial court reducing her support after those three years.
In re Marriage of Schaffer (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 801 – In this case (sometimes referred to as Schaffer II), a wife had repeatedly sought and obtained extensions of spousal support over many years. Eventually, the family court reduced support to zero at a modification hearing, essentially ending the support. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, noting there was **no abuse of discretion in considering the wife’s long history of support and lack of sufficient progress toward self-sufficiency**. Implicitly, over the years the wife had been given opportunities and warnings to become self-supporting, so the final termination was deemed fair.
In re Marriage of McLain (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 262 – This more recent case illustrates when a Gavron Warning may be declined. The parties divorced after a 13-year marriage, and both were already retired in their 60s. The trial court awarded the wife spousal support but **specifically refused to issue a Gavron Warning**, recognizing that at her age (66) and retired status, it was not reasonable to expect her to rejoin the workforce. The husband argued that she should be compelled to find work, but the court (and the Court of Appeal) disagreed, effectively ruling that a supported spouse’s right to retire could outweigh the self-sufficiency goal. McLain shows that judges have discretion not to give a Gavron Warning in cases where the supported spouse’s age or health makes the self-support expectation impractical.

Formula:

When to include a Gavron Warning: Judges should consider giving a Gavron Warning **whenever an order for spousal support is made and the supported spouse is capable of becoming at least partially self-supporting.** This is especially true in short-to-medium length marriages (e.g. under 10 years) or any case where the supported party has marketable skills, education, or the ability to acquire them. Including the warning in the divorce judgment or support order puts the expectation on record.
Tailor it to the circumstances: The decision to issue a Gavron Warning should take into account the specific facts required by Family Code § 4320, such as the supported spouse’s age, health, job skills, work history, and the length of the marriage. For example, if the supported spouse is young, educated, or has recent work experience, a Gavron Warning is likely appropriate. If the supported spouse is older or the marriage is a “long duration” (10+ years), the court may decide that giving a Gavron Warning is inadvisable or unnecessary because immediate self-sufficiency might be unrealistic. In such cases, the warning is optional, not mandatory.
Best practice in judgments: When a Gavron Warning is deemed appropriate, it should be explicitly written into the judgment or order (or stated on the record) so that there is a clear documentation that the supported party has been advised to become self-supporting. This creates a timeline for reasonable efforts. **A typical Gavron Warning clause** might state: “The supported spouse is expected to make reasonable good-faith efforts to become self-supporting. Failure to do so may be considered a basis for modifying or terminating support in the future.” By following this checklist – considering the marriage length, the supported spouse’s capacity, and the fairness of imposing a self-sufficiency requirement – attorneys and judges can determine when a Gavron Warning is appropriate and include it to protect the supporting party’s rights while still being fair to the supported party.