is a right to ‘draw[] from [a] sti-eam of income that ... begins to flow’ on retirement, as that stream is then defined,” and the “stream’s volume at retirement may depend on vai-ious events or conditions after separation and even after dissolution.” Lehman, 74 Cal.Rptr .2d 825, 955 P.2d at 454-55, quoting In re Marriage of Cornejo, 13 Cal.4th 381, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 81, 916 P.2d 476, 478 (Cal.1996). California courts recognize the first years of employment during a marriage must be given just as much weight as the years after separation, and a post-sepai-ation increase in a pension’s value from continued employment is not entirely separate property, because the pension’s value ordinarily is dependent upon the total number of years of employment. Lehman, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 825, 955 P.2d at 456 (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Judd, 68 Cal.App.3d 515,
holding that a spouses military retirement benefits were community property even though the employee spouse enlisted in the united states air force six years prior to the marriage holding railroad retirement benefits are not community property by congressional action holding a nonemployee spouse who holds a community pioperty interest in an employee spouses retirement benefits owns a community property interest in the latters iethement benefits as enhanced by eaily xetirement incentives holding that employee spouses accrued but unvested retirement benefits are a contingent property interest and a community asset holding that a nonemployee spouse holds a community marital property interest in pension plan early retirement enhancements because practically by definition the right to retirement benefits that accrues at least in part during marriage before separation underlies any right to an enhancement