Wald Law Group

Add to Favorites

Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys

Be the first to review!

CLOSED NOW

Tomorrow: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

(415) 648-3097Call Visit WebsiteVisit Website Map & DirectionsDirections88 Kearny St Ste 1475San Francisco, CA 94108 Write a ReviewWrite Review

Is this your business?

Customize this page.

Claim This Business

Hours

Regular Hours

Mon - Fri:	9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Places Near San Francisco with Attorneys

Belvedere Tiburon (11 miles)
Daly City (11 miles)
Sausalito (11 miles)
Emeryville (11 miles)
Oakland (12 miles)
Brisbane (12 miles)
Albany (14 miles)
Alameda (15 miles)
Berkeley (15 miles)
South San Francisco (15 miles)

More Info

Extra Phones

Phone: (415) 399-1840

Phone: (415) 648-3098

Location

Shell Bldg

Neighborhoods

Northeast San Francisco, Downtown San Francisco-Union Square

AKA

The Wald Law Group

The Thorndal Paul-Wald Law Group

Thorndal, Paul

Other Links

http://www.waldlaw.net

https://www.waldlaw.net

Categories

Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Automobile Accident Attorneys, Business Law Attorneys, Child Custody Attorneys, Corporation & Partnership Law Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Divorce Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Family Law Attorneys, Tax Attorneys

GalleryView all (1)

Gallery Image Number 1

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (415) 648-3097

Address: 88 Kearny St Ste 1475, San Francisco, CA 94108

Website: http://www.waldlaw.net

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Wald Law Group

Divorce
Child Support
9-Elisa B. v. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108. Elisa B. and Emily B. were partners in a committed relationship. Using sperm from the same anonymous donor, each became pregnant. Elisa gave birth to a boy in 1997; and Emily had twins, a girl and a boy, in 1998, one of whom was severely disabled. Emily and Elisa chose the children’s names together, hyphenated their last names as the children’s surnames, and considered both of themselves parents to all three children. Because of the one child’s disability, Emily remained at home as a full-time care-taker, while Elisa returned to work. Elisa provided medical insurance for all three children and claimed all three as dependents for income tax purposes. The couple separated in 1999. Elisa continued to provide financial support for the twins for another year-and-a-half after the break-up. After the support ended, and because Emily still was unable to work due to her baby’s disability, Emily obtained public assistance for the twins from El Dorado County. El Dorado County in turn sued Elisa for child support on the theory that Elisa had intentionally create the children with Emily using reproductive technology and therefore was legally responsible for them as a parent (see
Child Custody and Visitation
Child custody is divided into two main categories: legal and physical custody. Legal custody gives a parent the right and responsibility to make decisions for a child regarding such primary issues as healthcare and education. Physical custody determines where the child lives. Both legal and physical custody can be held by one parent (commonly referred to as “sole” custody) or be held jointly by two or more parents; and the considerations for determining the best
Adoption
What recognition is available for US Surrogacy? What legal costs should I budget for? What are the differences for International Surrogacy? How does step-parent adoption work? Join Deborah H. Wald for an informative discussion on Surrogacy Law.
Paternity
5-Jason P. v. Danielle S. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 167: Jason and Danielle were longstanding on-again-off-again romantic partners who never married. They attempted to conceive a child together but were unable to do so. At some point, Jason underwent surgery to increase his fertility; at some point, Jason wrote Danielle a letter saying he couldn’t be a father but she could use his sperm; and eventually, they went together to a fertility clinic and signed papers there for an IVF procedure designating themselves as the “Intended Parents.” As a result of the IVF procedure, a child was born. Jason had contact with the child and the three cohabited for some period of time. After Danielle cut off contact between Jason and the child, Jason filed a parentage action. The trial court held that Jason was a statutory sperm donor pursuant to Family Code § 7613 and thus was precluded from establishing paternity. Jason appealed. HELD: Although Jason was a statutory sperm donor, he nevertheless had standing to pursue paternity based on his parental conduct (see below). Family Code § 7613 precludes a statutory sperm donor from establishing paternity
Guardianship
When a child’s parents are unable to provide appropriate care for the child (for example, due to prolonged illness, substance abuse, or extended absence in jail or the military), there generally are two options: the state can find a new home for the child (foster care), or a friend or family member can take on the responsibilities of caring for the child (guardianship). The Wald Law Group gladly provides services to people offering to take responsibility for children through guardianship, rather than risking those children ending up in the foster care system.
Spousal Support
Divorcing couples may encounter challenges related to money and division of property, related to the custody of their children, or both. Addressing these challenges often involves very different skill sets. The best attorney to help with spousal support or asset division may

Criminal Defense
Prior to moving into family law, Ms. Wald practiced immigration law with a focus on deportation defense and political asylum. She also is an experienced criminal defense attorney, having started her career as a public defender and then gone on to focus on indigent criminal appeals. She has integrated her immigration knowledge into her family law practice by representing undocumented children in Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) proceedings, as well as acting as a pro bono advisor to the San Francisco Office of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND).
Sex Crimes
6-In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588: Jesusa became the subject of dependency proceedings shortly before her second birthday, after her biological father, Heriberto, was arrested for beating and raping Jesusa’s pregnant mother and Jesusa’s mother was hospitalized for her injuries. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered Jesusa placed with Paul, the mother’s husband and father of the mother’s other five children. Paul — who was married to Jesusa’s mother at the time of Jesusa’s birth and who had received Jesusa into his home and held her out as his own on weekends and during times when Jesusa’s mother had sought refuge with him from Heriberto — promptly requested a declaration by the juvenile court that he was Jesusa’s presumed father under Family Code § 7611 (a) and (d). Nine days later, Heriberto also filed a request to be declared Jesusa’s presumed father. After a hearing, at which Heriberto was represented by counsel but was not himself present, having been sentenced to state prison for the rape of Jesusa’s mother, the juvenile court found that Paul was Jesusa’s legal presumed father. Jesusa’s mother supported the court’s decision to place Jesusa with Paul. Heriberto appealed. HELD: The California Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ holding that Paul was Jesusa’s legal father. It applied
Restraining Order
EXTREME SITUATIONS CALL FOR EXTREME MEASURES: WHEN A RESTRAINING ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH, Saturday February 3, 2018, Sponsored by Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-CA) Annual Conference, February 2-4, 2018, Park Central Hotel, San Francisco.
Manslaughter
5-In re L.L. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1302: L.L. is the biological daughter of her mother and B.S., and B.S. brought a family court action when she was a baby in which he established parentage and was awarded joint legal custody and visitation; and the record showed that he had regularly and consistently visited with L.L. in his home for the first several years of her life. However, L.L. was raised by her mother and another man, T.L., and T.L. was a primary source of stability for L.L. despite his own intermittent struggles with substance abuse and homelessness. When L.L. was 10 years old, she ended up in the dependency system after a probation search of her mother’s home found drugs and drug paraphernalia. In the juvenile court proceedings, T.L. was found to be her presumed father and, initially, B.S. (who was in prison for manslaughter) was found to be only an alleged father. However, once the family court orders establishing his paternity surfaced, the juvenile court recognized that B.S. also was a presumed father and found that it would not be detrimental to L.L. if B.S. was found to be her third parent. Mother and T.L. appealed. HELD: The Court of Appeal disagreed with the

Business and Corporate Law

Corporate Law
As monumental struggles for legal protections are unfolding in diverse communities across the country, we have opportunities to support allied campaigns and to learn from each other across common struggles. This workshop will explore the role of cross-movement solidarity and lawyering in building transformative change. We will address both the challenges and opportunities involved in building strong alliances across identities and boundaries. We will explore legal strategies for tackling issues that have commonalities not only across diverse LGBTQ communities but across other communities as well; and techniques for sustaining and deepening cross-movement and cross-issue lawyering. The workshop will also address the logistical, ethical, and practical “nuts and bolts” of how non-profit organizations, community groups, and corporate law firms can maximize their resources to collaborate on rapid-response advocacy and outreach to support LGBTQ communities facing new challenges in this complex social climate. The code of professional ethics is a foundation for this discussion. Join moderator Deborah H. Wald, and speakers Flor Bermudez, Nishan Bhaumik, Susan Belinda Christian, Kelly Dermody, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Virginia Goggin, and Richard Saenz for an informative discussion.

Auto Accidents

Trusts and Estates

Probate
CALIFORNIA FAMILY AND PROBATE LAW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT 10:50-11:50AM Saturday November 9, 2019 Sponsored by American Immigration Lawyers Association California Chapter (AILA), Monterey Convention Center, Monterey California.

Tax Law
Join Deborah H. Wald and and Deb L. Kinney for this panel. Same-sex and transgender couples and families face different legal and tax treatment because of where they live, how they have accumulated assets or myriad other reasons. Learn what issues to consider in order to provide excellent services to these families. Participants will: (1) develop an understanding of the complexity of assessing the relationship status of same-sex and transgender couples; (2) develop an understanding of some of the challenges same-sex couples face in organizing their financial affairs; (3) develop a greater awareness of the tax issues facing same-sex couples; (4) develop an understanding of the challenges facing LGBT families with children.

View All Services

Provided by