Turning Shortcuts Into Setbacks: Why MPAs Matter in Family Court

Ever seen someone cut corners to save time or money — only to create a bigger mess later?

In family law, that’s what happens when attorneys file a Request for Order (RFO) with no Memorandum of Points and Authorities (MPA).

The MPA is the glue that holds an RFO together. An RFO is how a party asks a judge to issue an order in a family law case — for example, setting child support or deciding parenting time.

An RFO has three key parts:

• Declaration: the story — who did what, when, and how it affects the family.

• Memorandum of Points and Authorities (MPA): the argument — the roadmap that connects the story to the law, showing why those facts matter and why the judge should rule your way.

• Proposed Order: the ask — the practical outcome you want the judge to sign.

Unlike most civil motions, a supporting MPA isn’t required when filing an RFO in family court. California Rules of Court, rule 5.92 expressly states that no memorandum of points and authorities need be filed with a Request for Order — or with a Responsive Declaration — unless required by the court in that case. Because of that, many attorneys skip it — often telling clients it saves them money. But in practice, leaving out the MPA usually creates more confusion, more stress, and ultimately, higher costs.

Why MPAs matter in family law

Family law judges are often rotated into the assignment without deep prior experience, and many serve only a short time before rotating again. They also have limited time to review papers.

A clear MPA gives them the roadmap:

• What are you asking for?

• Why are you asking for it?

• Is it justified under the law?

Even when a judge knows the law, having it front and center helps when they’re working under intense time pressure.

And remember: declarations are for facts, not arguments. As the court noted in In re Marriage of Heggie (2002), including argument in declarations is “a sloppy practice which should stop.”

Finally, writing an MPA sharpens your advocacy. It makes you focus on the facts that matter under the law — and leave the emotional arguments behind.

I’ve seen first-hand how skipping an MPA creates chaos.

In one case, an attorney filed an RFO asking the court to consider mortgage payments when setting support — but without an MPA explaining the legal framework. No one, not even the judge, was clear on what was really being requested. The hearing devolved into confusion and wasted time, which unnecessarily increased costs for everyone. What could have been a straightforward issue with a short MPA turned into a stressful, expensive mess.

Recommended practices for stronger RFOs

• Include an MPA, even if not required. It doesn’t need to be long — a few focused pages citing the key statute or rule go a long way.

• Keep facts in declarations and legal arguments in the MPA. This separation gives clarity to the court and avoids sloppy briefing.

• Use the MPA as your roadmap. Start with the issue, cite the authority, and connect only the facts that matter.

• Write for a time-pressed judge. Use headings, bullets, and clear, specific requests.

• Treat the MPA as client protection. It reduces confusion, lowers the risk of mistakes, and strengthens the client’s position.

Bottom line: skipping an MPA isn’t really saving money — it just shifts the cost into confusion and courtroom stress. A clear MPA helps the judge, strengthens your advocacy, and protects the client.

How do you approach briefing in family court? Have you found strategies that make motions clearer and more effective? I’d love to hear your thoughts.