When Father is Relegated to the Weekend Parent

By: Timothy P. Flynn

A case that caught our attention from the Michigan Court of Appeals last month deserves mention in this blog.  The case comes from the St. Clair County's Family Court; the family court judge that ruled in Mother's favor to allow a significant modification of the parenting schedule was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

In Burke v Lobodzinski, the family court judge sided with Mother in her petition to modify the child's week-on-week-off parenting schedule, allowing Mother to move with the child from Bay City to Troy.  The parenting schedule was modified so that Mother had the child during the school year and Father had evey-other-weekend.

In doing so, the family court judge was in part swayed by Mother's testimony that the move allowed her to be a "stay-at-home" mom due to her husband's new job.  The effect of the ruling was to relegate Father to a weekend parent.

Even though the move was not more than 100-miles [a statutory threshold], the family court held that it was significant because it involved a change in school districts for the child, and made the alternating weekly parenting schedule untenable.  The lower court concluded the proposed move was in the child's best interests, and Dad lost out.

In reversing the St. Clair Family Court judge, the Court of Appeals was persuaded by two things: a) since the proposed move would alter the established custodial environment of the child, the lower court utilized the lower burden of proof [preponderance of the evidence] instead of the intermediate burden [clear and convincing evidence]; and b) Mother may have provided false testimony about being a stay-at-home mom when, in fact, she was employed as a clerk at the Macomb County Circuit Court.

The burden of proof is significant in cases like this.  Mother's motion, if decided on a preponderance standard, is easier to establish and thus prevail.  If Mother had the heightened burden, the motion is more difficult to carry.

As for lying to the court about her job, that too should be taken into account.  On remand, however, the Court of Appeals noted that the lower court should also take into account the fact that the child was allowed to continue living with her Mother in Troy during the year this case took to decide on appeal.

Custody of our children, much like the possession of chattel, seems to be driven by the age-old principle: possession is nine tenths of the law.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
tflynn@clarkstonlegal.com

Uniform Collaborative Divorce Law Act Passes Michigan Senate

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

Readers of this blog will recognize our commitment to the collaborative divorce process.  Whenever possible, given the circumstances and personal dynamics of the parties, it usually is the best way to go in family court.

The collaborative divorce model is where a married couple meets with a team of family law professionals [case facilitator, family counselor, financial planner] before filing for divorce, hopefully resolving all issues in a signed settlement agreement.  The process is collaborative rather than adversarial.

Across Michigan and our nation, there is a steady and growing movement toward favoring the collaborative model; the adversarial process is being relegated to a last resort.

Over the past four years, the Uniform Collaborative Divorce Law has been sweeping across the state legislatures.  Recently, the Michigan Senate passed the model act, sending it along to the House Judiciary Committee.

Because the collaborative divorce model is so distinct from the adversarial process, the uniform law calls for standards and training for lawyers wanting to add collaborative divorce to their practice.  The bill calls for the State Court Administrative Office to develop the training and lawyer qualification standards called for in the model act.

For its part, the SCAO does not want to be tasked with training the lawyers and wonders how it will pay for training and enforcing the standards.  Unlike the other states that have passed the model act, Michigan would be the only state requiring training standards.

These standards come to us from the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law Section.

What is wrong with some additional training for family law lawyers, especially in thrust of the collaborative divorce resolution process.  In our opinion, this is a good law which will hopefully pass through the House and become law.

Divorce needs more collaboration and less opposition.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Minor's Guardian Cannot Prevent Grandparent Visitation

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that a court-appointed guardian of a minor child cannot prevent contact between the child and his Grandmother.  Thus, this case holds that a minor's guardian is not the equivalent of a parent.

This case, Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, is one of first impression in Michigan as no prior decisions directly touched on this issue.  The published and thus binding decision will have a significant impact on minor guardianships.

The facts in the case are sad, as are so many of the cases from our family and probate courts.  The minor's mother is deceased and his father, once homeless, is in prison on a sex abuse conviction.

After nearly a year of not being allowed to see her grandson, the paternal grandmother sought visitation under the grandparent visitation statute.  She filed a motion in the Genesee County Family Court hoping to go over-the-head of her grandson's guardian, who repeatedly refused the grandmother's requests for visitation.

Family Court Judge Kay Behm ruled after 4-days of evidentiary hearings that a guardian could step into the shoes of a parent and deny contact with the grandmother.  In ruling in the Grandmother's favor, the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Behm holding that: the grandparenting statute was not properly followed; that the Legislature elected not to equate a guardian with a parent in the context of the grandparenting statute; and that the minor guardianship and the grandparenting statutes cover different subject matter.

The next step is reunification between grandmother and grandson.  For this young boy's sake, hopefully this will go well; he already has a very troubled past.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Grandparents Lack Standing When Parental Rights Are Terminated

By: Amanda Chapman

A recent 2-1 Michigan Court of Appeals decision published earlier this month, Porter v Hill, ruled that when a “natural” parent’s rights to their child are terminated, the grandparents rights are terminated along with the parents.  This ruling seems to conflict with the Child Custody Act.

The heart of this controversial ruling centers on the definition, or lack thereof, of “natural” parent vs “legal” parent.  At least for now, grandparents are out-of-luck, and this ruling will inflict some pain on select families.

In the Porter case, the bio-Mom and Dad were married with two children.  Mr. Porter’s parental rights to the children were involuntarily terminated as a result of physical abuse.  The parties were subsequently divorced.  Mr. Porter passed away, and his parents (the children’s paternal biological grandparents) then filed suit in Saginaw Circuit Court for grandparenting time with their grandchildren. 

Mother filed a motion for summary disposition, attempting to keep her ex-husband’s parents from establishing rights with her children.  Mother’s legal theory was that the grandparents did not have standing, or a legal cause of action under these facts. 

Mother’s dispositive motion asserted that when father’s parental rights were terminated that, in turn, meant that any rights grandparents may have had under the grandparenting provisions of the Child Custody Act had been severed as well.  The trial court reluctantly granted mother’s motion for summary disposition, openly acknowledging this case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

   

It is important to note that no determinations have been made, either in the trial court or the appellate court, as to the relative fitness of the Plaintiff-Grandparents, or whether granting grandparenting time would be in the best interests of the children.

A summary disposition motion is a dispositive motion that attempts to dismiss the case before it proceeds through discover and onward to trial.  The only question considered in this instance was whether the grandparents had a legal cause of action (otherwise known as “standing”) to bring the case in the first place.

Michigan’s Child Custody Act includes a section pertaining to grandparenting time which provides that

[a] child’s grandparent may seek a grandparenting time order under 1 or more of the following circumstances:…  (c) The child’s parent who is a child of the grandparents is deceased.

The statute defines “parent” as “the natural or adoptive parent of a child.”  “Grandparent” is defined as “a natural or adoptive parent of the child’s natural or adoptive parent.  

The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decision, holding:

Russell was not a legal parent of the children…  Plaintiffs, as Russell’s parents, derived their rights as grandparents through him. 

The court further stated that

it would be anomalous for the Legislature to authorize a court to terminate a person’s parental rights based on abuse but then to somehow “revive” those rights for purposes of grandparent visitation.

Interestingly, Judge Mark Boonstra authored a dissenting opinion.  First, Judge Boonstra noted that:

[T]he Legislature’s use of the phrase natural parent and its affording to a grandparent of a right to seek grandparenting time independent of parental rights and notwithstanding parental desires…indicate both the plaintiffs …substantial interest in this case and that the statutory scheme at least implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the plaintiffs.

Next, Judge Boonstra pointed out that the statute:

permits a ‘natural parent’ of a ‘natural parent’ to seek grandparenting time…and there is no dispute here that plaintiffs were the ‘natural parents’ of Russell. The only question before us, therefore, is whether Russell was a ‘natural parent’ of the minor children.

The dissent further goes on to elucidate the fact that the Child Custody Act does not provide a definition for natural parent.  The words of a statute provide the most reliable indicator of the Legislature’s intent and should be interpreted on the basis of their ordinary meaning and context in which they are used.   An undefined statutory word must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning…    

In Porter, the grandparents argued that natural parent should be interpreted as equivalent to biological parent.  The dissenting opinion supports this interpretation on the basis of the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “natural” according to the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1991) which defines it as “related by blood rather than by adoption.”  Further, the dissent goes on the use Black’s Law Dictionary (9^th ed) definition of “natural” as “relating to birth” as in a “natural child as distinguished from [an] adopted child.”

The majority opinion based their ruling on equating a natural parent to be the equivalent of a legal parent.   Yet, the dissent astutely pointed out that the basis of such a determination does not coincide with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word term “natural,” and in fact the term is much more in-line as being similar to plaintiffs’ proffered “biological” term.  The dissent contends that “natural parent must connote something more and different than simply having “legal” parental rights.”

Some local family law lawyers have opined that the majority of the Court of Appeals got this one dead wrong.  For now, however, the majority decision stands.

In its decision, the intermediate appellate court asks the Legislature to clarify their intended meaning of the term natural parent; let's not hold our breath.    

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

The Intersection of Family and Criminal Law

Oscar Pistorius faces a judge at a bail hearing.

We have only to look to the recent and utterly tragic Oscar Pistorius premeditated murder case to know that sometimes our emotions get the best of us when it comes to love and romance.  While we are in no way convicting Mr. Pistorius before his day in court, it is simply a very sad reminder that domestic violence exists in more homes than anyone cares to admit.

Particularly in these trying times, the highly emotional process of divorce has a tendency to bring out the worst in the best among us.  We are all human; thus imperfect.

Divorce is unpleasant for everyone involved even on a good day.  Unfortunately, family law matters have the potential to devolve into a criminal case.

Professionals in the family law community must be vigilant in observing and recognizing signs of potential domestic abuse situations.  When signs of abuse are manifest, there is an opportunity to connect the potential victim to local resources to defuse a difficult and potentially dangerous situation.  The best results occur when an inchoate threat is avoided by proper counseling, resource sharing, and planning.

For the family law bar, it is also important to counsel clients to “keep their cool” while undergoing the tumult of a divorce.  At times clients feel like they can garner a tactical advantage by reporting a spouse’s behavior to law enforcement.  Sometimes this occurs in the heat of a custody battle; one parent thinks that repeated Child Protective Service calls will help them get an evidentiary “leg up”.

Or a spouse elects to manufacture an incident that gets reported to the local police in order to have the other parent removed from the household; buttons are pushed until a physical incident occurs.

These are not valid child custody coping mechanisms.  A good family law attorney that has her client’s best interests in mind will vigorously counsel against such tactics.  Not only do contrived allegations hurt the parties, but they waste precious resources and take the focus away from those who really need the help.  

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

The 2013 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual

Back in January 2008, the Friend of the Court Bureau of the State Court Administrator's Office published a fairly comprehensive set of changes to the Michigan Child Support Formula.  Next week, their new child support manual comes out; the first since those 2008 changes.  This post covers all the significant changes that take effect on January 1st.

The 2013 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual is available online; you can access the manual by simply clicking this link.  As set forth in the manual, here is a summary of the changes scheduled to take place:

In the first significant change referenced above, section 1.04(E), a series of deviation factors are listed for consideration when strict application of the formula would generate inequities; the new factors are:

(18) A child in the custody of a third-party recipient spends a significant number of
overnights with the payer that causes a significant savings in the third party’s
expenses. 

(19) The court ordered nonmodifiable spousal support paid between the parents before
October 2004.  

(20) When a parent’s share of net child care expenses exceeds 50 percent of that
parent’s base support obligation calculated under §3.02 before applying the
parental time offset.

The most significant change in the 2013 MCSF Manual lies in the treatment and explanation of the self-employed individual or business owner.  Section 2.07(E) essentially has been re-written to include an introductory statement of tenets to consider when attempting to calculate a business owner's or self-employed individual's income.

The basic "add-backs", however, remain the same.  Such add-backs include things like: rent paid by the business to the owner-payor; depreciation allowances; home office expenses; entertainment expenses; travel expenses; and vehicle allowances.

While the authors of the manual(s) would not agree, we here at this blog perceive a slight editorial shift in the new manual, going from a pro-payor to a pro-payee treatment of such individuals.

Although the exact language of the income and deduction sections [2.01(C) and 2.07(E)] has been  slightly modified, the effect remains that: a) income includes retirement contributions from either the employee parent payor or the employer; and b) an employee parent deducts up to 5.5% of these contributions from the income calculation.

The 2008 MCSF Manual set the minimum child support obligation at $25 per month; this has been removed in the new manual.

And finally, a better explanation is offered in the 2013 MCSF Manual relative to the treatment of a payor's supplemental contribution to the children's benefit with items such as health care savings accounts or flexible benefit plans frequently offered by employers.

With our headquarters in Oakland County, Michigan, and a proven track record of case management in all the adjacent counties, we provide a free consultation for family court litigants that may have issues arising due to the changes in the MCSF.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Six Holiday Parenting Tips

This is a seasonal re-post from last December.  The suggestions apply to divorced or separated families this time of the year.


Often, tensions escalate over the holidays as divorced parents struggle with the demands of scheduling the children to accommodate two households.  Holiday schedules are already difficult without the complications of a divorce judgment or divorce proceeding.

Here are some practical tips in dealing with holiday parenting time gleaned from divorce lawyers around the state.

1. Reduce an alternating holiday schedule to a court order.  It is always best for the children when the parents can agree on a schedule.  Alternating holidays is most common when drafting the parenting schedule.  When both parents live close to one another, many families utilize a shared holiday model where the children spend time with one parent until noon, and the other  parent for the balance of the day; then the next year, they switch.  This works for Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and other holidays.  
2. Discuss the schedule with the children.  One solid co-parenting tactic is for both parents, once an agreement is reached, to communicate the schedule to the children.  This way, the children know in advance what to expect.  This can best be accomplished when both parents commit to rational communication and reasonable compromise for the children's sake.
3. Keep the activities simple.  This tip is particularly essential when the children are relatively young and if the divorce is still fresh.  The wounds of the once-whole family have yet to heal; holidays are particularly painful for both children and parents.  Therefore, it makes sense to tone down the activities and avoid rushing hither and yon during your now-scheduled parenting time.
4. Let your child express her feelings to you.  It is important to allow your children the opportunity to express their feelings of loss and disappointment and for you, as the parent, to validate those feelings.  What the child once experienced as an intact family unit has been fractured by divorce.  Therefore, pretending that everything is fine, or over-scheduling a whirlwind of activities to the point of distraction, will only add to the stress of your holiday parenting time.
5. Involve your extended family.  The more love the child feels during the years immediately following a divorce, the better.  Therefore, schedule some quality family time with members of your extended family.  Certainly, this would be a great opportunity for your children to spend time with their grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.  If your extended family is highly dysfunctional then, er, not-so-much.  
6. Avoid including a new "significant other".  This is the last thing you want to do at the holidays; not the time or the place.  Including your "significant other" too soon is a selfish thing to do to your children.  Upon reflection, you would probably agree that you would be doing that for yourself, certainly not for your children.  Children of divorce already struggle with guilt, a sense of loss, and insecurity.  They often perceive the introduction of a stranger, especially one that is close and intimate with their parent, as a threat, not a benefit from their parents' divorce.

Of course, the above holiday parenting tips must be adjusted to be age-appropriate.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this touchy subject.

Finally, a positive parental attitude over the holidays does wonders for a child's comfort and confidence.  Be the adult, not the child.

Post Note: For another local attorney's take on this subject, take a look at our friend, Henry Gornbein's post in the Huffington Post Divorce Blog.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Sibling Visitation - Does it Exist?

We have all heard the term “visitation” before, especially if you have been involved in a child custody dispute or divorce.  The term most often used by family law lawyers and professionals is “parenting time”; referring to the legal right [and obligation] of a parent to spend time with one’s child following a divorce.  

Even grandparents, under limited and specific circumstances, may have a legal right to visit with their grandchildren according to Michigan law.

But what about siblings?  Does a brother or sister have the right to visit their sibling, if for some reason they are no longer living within the same household? 

The short answer is that sibling visitation is not recognized as a legal right in Michigan.   The Child Custody Act does not provide for visitation rights between siblings.  Add adoption into the mix and the result remains the same – but for a more specific reason.  

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals grappled with, and attempted to decide

this very issue in Wilson v King; a published thus binding opinion of the intermediate appellate court.

Marquita Wilson, the plaintiff-mother in this case, had three children who were eventually adopted into a new family in 2008 after her parental rights had been terminated.  Ms. Wilson then gave birth to a fourth child; Mac.  

The adoptive parents of Ms. Wilson's three children initially allowed Mac to visit with his siblings.  Sadly, for reasons not stated in the Court of Appeals opinion, the adoptive parents ultimately discontinued these sibling visits.  

Ms. Wilson filed suit on behalf of Mac in Wayne County Family Court.  The family court judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the right to “sibling visitation” does not exist under Michigan Law.  On appeal, Ms. Wilson argued that Michigan law does provide for a cause of action for sibling visitation and that the lower court had erred in dismissing her case.  

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision – but did not find one way or the other on whether or not Michigan law provides for a cause of action for sibling visitation.  Instead, the Court focused on the fact that Mac’s older siblings had been adopted.  

Adoption legally severs any ties to the prior, natural family, and creates, in its place, a new adoptive family recognized at law.  This means that, legally speaking, Mac’s older siblings (once they had been adopted) were no longer his legal siblings in the eyes of the law.   

The Court of Appeals held that even if a cause of action regarding sibling visitation existed (which the Court made sure to footnote that they offered “no opinion as to the viability of such a claim”) in Mac’s instance the claim must fail as the three adoptive children were no longer his siblings. 

While we recognize the psychological importance of eliminating contact with biological parents in order to facilitate growth in the new adoptive family, this ruling strikes us as similar in spirit to the old paternity act that denied a biological father standing to seek any parenting time with his child whatsoever.

The ruling seems to foster the notion of wiping-out all traces of the adopted child's  biological family.  Many adopted children, as they mature, seek out traces of their biological families.  Some of these children, as they mature into adulthood, obsess over their lost families and seek therapy to deal with the loss.

At base, however, there is really no-way in cases like this to allow sibling visitation, without also focusing on the biological parents.  Our adoption laws currently do not provide for the maintenance of two families; just one: the adoptive family.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Boyfriend's Background Check Refusal Causes Child Custody Modification

In this modern day, it is very important to know with whom your children are associating.  Danger lurks everywhere, including in the home next door, down the street, across town, or across the country.

Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion for publication [meaning that it now binds all lower courts] in a case from the Newago County Family Court.  The case, Mitchell v Mitchell, holds that a Mother's refusal to abide by a family court's ruling to provide a background check on her live-in boyfriend is "just cause" to modify custody.

In Mitchell, the parents divorced and Mother eventually moved to Texas.  Apparently, Mom's boyfriend was instrumental in the all-too-common process of alienation directed at the non-relocating parent.  Mom did not fire-up the Skype and botched a few Texas to Michigan trips, as ordered by the family court at the time it granted leave for the relocation.

Most importantly, however, Mom and her boyfriend refused to provide the court-ordered background check.  This proved fatal to her custody case and now, Dad has the kids.  What a mess.

From time to time, our law firm gets cases where one parent, in moving on to other relationships, exhibits risky behavior relative to the selection of his or her live-in partner.  In such cases, what can the other parent do; just sit back and wait for the damage to be done?

Now, thanks to the published Mitchell decision, one safeguard that can be requested is for the family court to order a background check of the individual.  If used properly, this device will provide some information that would otherwise be unavailable.

A competing concern is, of course, the privacy of the individual.  This ruling can, and no doubt will, be used offensively and improperly as often as it is used in the fashion intended by the 3-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

All we here at the Law Blogger can say about that is: is he or she really worth it?  Best to err on the side of caution for the safety of the children.

In our practice, we routinely counsel clients to take it slow when it comes to introducing young children to the new "significant other".  Divorce is unsettling enough; the new person is most often seen by the kids, even when nice, as a threat.  They may repress their anxiety in order to gain approval from the relocating parent.

What a mess we can make right in our own kitchens.

The best defense to all of this is to exercise good judgment and to err on the side of putting the kids first; something that Kate Mitchell was found not to have done.  In so doing, she has unwittingly handed us family law attorneys a defensive weapon which can be wielded in the protection of the children.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Narcissus Gets A Divorce

Narcissus admires his reflection.

In my decades of divorce practice, I've encountered folks who, if a psychological evaluation was completed, would be characterized as having narcissistic personality disorder.  A few of these peeps have been clients; others have been on the opposing side.

Either way, everyone involved is in for a rough ride.

Over the past several years, "narcissism" has also taken on a connotation-du-jour.  The diagnosis being made by dime-store psychologists (i.e. parties to family court litigation) whenever the object takes an opposing or contrary view. 

What is narcissim, really?

According to the Mayo Clinic, narcissistic personality disorder is "characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders."   A person with this personality disorder may exhibit some of the following characteristics, according to the Clinic:

• Believing you are better than others;
• Fantasizing about your success, power and attractiveness;
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents;
• Expecting constant praise and admiration;
• Ignoring other's feelings and emotions;
• Believing and acting like you are really, really special;
• Taking advantage of others;
• Expecting others to go along with your often super-sized schemes and plans;
• Exhibiting jealousy toward others;
• Believing others are jealous of you;
• Unable to maintain healthy inter-personal relationships;
• Easily hurt or rejected;
• Fragile self-esteem

If you know someone with more than a few of these traits, run.  If you are married to such a person, get ready for the inevitable divorce proceeding when you finally throw in the towel, realizing that your spouse will never change. 

If you are a lawyer representing such a person, affix your chin strap and bring a lunch.

In the divorce context, the narcissist fares quite poorly.  The above-listed features of this personality disorder are routinely identifed and rigorously addressed by family court professionals. 

In this process, the personality flaws of the narcissist are forced itno the lab for a full-on forensic evaluation.  Many of the tools in the family court professional's arsenal will be brought to bear upon the conduct of the narcissist in an effort to force short-term modification, and to achieve a stable platform.

Some red flags that I've gleaned over the years: a narcissist will change lawyers often, blaming the status of the case on the mistakes of prior legal counsel.  Also, the register of actions in the case of a narcissist will often be a mile long, peppered with hearings, motions, and more hearings.

When a narcissist is embroiled in a divorce proceeding, the children are used as pawns.  Any input from the Friend of the Court [either via a referee, family counselor, or social worker] or from a therapist, is rejected; the narcissistic parent must be dragged to court, kicking, screaming and cursing.

In the years leading up to such a divorce, the other spouse will often report being chronically verbally abused and bullied by the narcissist.  In fact, this dynamic will set the initial tone of the proceeding.

The process will next feature a series of attempts, which will take some time, where the professionals try to arrest the insidious and pervasive conduct of the narcissist.  Arrest, but not change; this person will not change.

The other spouse many times will exhibit classic signs of emotional abuse during this painful process: low self-esteem, exhaustion, a desire to give up or give in.  This person needs a strong focused divorce lawyer.

And counseling. 

During the divorce process, the other spouse is well advised to minimize the face-to-face contacts with the narcissist.  If children are involved, then communicate through emails and texts. 

If you feel threatened at home or during parenting exchanges, seek exclusive use of the marital home.  If you are separated, use a neutral transition point for the parenting exchanges; most family court judges will grant such a request simply to err on the side of everyone's safety.

Finally, stay focused on the process knowing that the process will eventually come to an end.  The Michigan Supreme Court has mandated that county family courts conclude divorce proceedings within a year.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Preparing for a Second Marriage

Many factors affect whether a second marriage will last: the relative age and incomes of the partners, whether either party has children, cohabitation prior to the second nuptials, and the education level of the parties.

And, of course, how could we forget the personality of the ex-spouse; perhaps the most important factor of all.

According to statistics published by the National Institute of Health, approximately 15% of second marriages end within 3-years; and 23% end within 5-years.  Overall, however, the divorce rate for second marriages has drawn even with that of first marriages; about 40%.  Also, in its 2009 report Marital Events of Americans, the Census Bureau claims first marriages last, on average, about as long as second marriages: about 8-years.

Here are some things to think about, and some steps to consider, before tying the knot for the second time.

Prenuptial Agreement.
For those with assets, this document is a must.  To be enforceable, the prenuptial agreement largely depends on two things: a) full disclosure by both parties of all their respective assets; and b) legal representation of each party by separate lawyers.  If your partner does not want to sign such an agreement, then you should seriously consider cohabitation rather than marriage.  This is a harbinger of trouble in the event of a split.

Couples with only modest estates going into second marriages generally do not need the complication of a prenuptial agreement.  If a marital estate grows during the second marriage, that estate will be subject to an equitable property division in the event of divorce.

Solid Estate Planning.
Prior to a second marriage, assets may be transferred into a trust for the benefit of the owner's children.  Also, retirement asset rollovers (from a 401(k) plan into an IRA, for example) can operate to protect the new spouse with survivor benefits, or not, as the case may be.

A Qualified Terminable Interest Property trust (QTIP) typically provides for interest income going to a surviving (second) spouse, with the principle going to the settlor's children from her first marriage upon the death of the second spouse.

Children from a prior marriage can also be provided for using an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.  This way, the new spouse can be designated as the beneficiary on the person's retirement assets and the children are designated beneficiaries of the death benefit from the life insurance policy.

Another common practice is to create a separate trust to provide for the distribution of separate property to the children from the first marriages and to create a joint trust to provide for the distribution of the marital estate of the second marriage. 
Good Premarital Counseling.
One of the best things a couple can do prior to tying the second knot is to participate in joint counseling.  This should include religious counseling or premarital couples therapy, financial advice, and (separate) legal consultation.  Once separate legal counsel is received, the couple can certainly compare notes in order to get on the same page.

Going into a second marriage with your eyes open improves the chances of a successful nuptials.  When selecting an attorney to assist you with the necessary planning, find one that truly listens to your expressed wishes and pays close attention to the characteristics of your estate.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Even Divorce Lawyers Cannot Afford a Divorce Attorney

The following is a guest post from the LawDiva blog of Georgialee Lang, a Canadian lawyer turned "stay-at-home-Mom" from Vancouver, BC.  Here is her recent post:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that most Canadians cannot afford a lawyer. In fact, lawyers often joke that if they had to pay a lawyer, they too couldn’t afford it. Nowhere is this dilemma more obvious than in family courts.

It is now commonplace to see self-represented litigants dueling with lawyers in most of our family courts in Canada. In British Columbia a parent or spouse can apply for custody and child and spousal support in the Provincial Court, which is purposely “user-friendly”. 

The Provincial Family Courts across Canada have successfully implemented reforms including plain-language court documents that are readily decipherable by lay litigants. The judges in Provincial Court are accustomed to hearing cases without lawyers and graciously assist those who act for themselves.

However, to obtain a divorce or property division, the only venue is each province’s Supreme Court, sometimes called “Queen’s Bench”, a most inhospitable environment for in-person litigants.

In a 2011 survey of Ontario divorce lawyers, conducted by Professor Nick Bala of Queen’s University Law School, he found that 48% of 167 responding lawyers indicated they were seeing many cases with at least one lay litigant and more cases where at some point in the litigation, neither party had counsel.

As family law becomes increasingly more complicated, despite the Canadian government’s sensible introduction of both Child Support Guidelines in 1997 and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in 2006, there are minefields enough for lawyers, never mind those who are forced to act as their own lawyer.

Will a lay litigant understand that in calculating their income for the payment of child support they must consider and understand complex nuances such as the possibility of the exclusion of non-recurring income; the need to include all of their capital gains income in their calculation and not just the portion they see on page two of their tax return; and their ability to deduct business expenses, union or professional dues and carrying costs? I doubt it. Not all lawyers have figured it out yet!

But affordability is not the only reason litigants refuse to retain counsel.  There is another group of litigants who believe they can handle their divorce case just as well as a lawyer can.  This smaller segment often become serial litigators who, because it costs them nothing, bring multiple frivolous applications, although some would say that lawyers do the same thing! Often when offered pro bono counsel, they decline.

Problems abound for all involved in the family justice system in the wake of the impact of lay litigants. Judges who must ensure that justice is both done, and seen to be done, are at the centre of the dilemma. If they provide too much help for an in-person litigant, that litigant’s spouse will see it as an unfair advantage and often, the court Rules that govern court procedures are less stringently enforced when it comes to litigants with no lawyer.

As well, litigants that pay for their own lawyer often become disenchanted with their counsel when they see their lawyer “helping” their estranged spouse who has no counsel. Lawyers are bound to treat participants in the justice system with courtesy and respect, traits that are frequently misconceived as their lawyer being “too friendly” with their opponent.  Fee-paying litigants resent their lawyer telling their spouse what the law is or how the court process works.

For lawyers the problems are multiplied.  They must walk a fine line in dealing with an unrepresented spouse and must ensure that all communication with an in-person litigant is documented in writing, with no exceptions.  Of course, their clients are even more unhappy since it is their clients who pay the bills for the extra time and effort required to work with a lay litigant.

Lay litigants have also been known to send abusive communication to their spouse’s lawyer and from time to time, report their spouse’s lawyer to the Law Society, a complaint which can cost a lawyer hours of wasted time to respond to the often ill-founded allegations.

Is there a cure? They say that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it. Certainly,the issue can no longer be avoided.  It has taken centre stage as a result of lawyers, judges, court administrators, law professors, lawmakers, and the Canadian public decrying the slow demise of Canada’s family justice system.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Five Red Flags that Your Divorce Attorney is on the Wrong Road

Divorce lawyers are expensive; far too expensive for what most families need in a divorce proceeding.  If you are involved in a divorce, here are some warning signs to help you determine whether you are getting your money's worth for this important service.

1.  Lack of Communication.  A breakdown in communication is the number one cause of client dissatisfaction with their divorce attorney.  If a lawyer does not return your call within a reasonable time, she is either too busy or does not care about your case.

We all know in this era of smart phones that our lawyers get our calls, emails, and text messages within minutes of pushing the send button.  Has your lawyer provided a cell phone contact; do you have access to her staff?  If not, then you are not a priority in their office.

2.  Does not know your case.  Any engaged lawyer will have several cases going at one time.  Every family is different.  But a good lawyer will be sharp enough to master the basic facts and dynamics of your family.  The next time you have a status meeting with your lawyer, listen carefully to the lawyer to determine whether he speaks in general terms; or whether he has a specific plan that applies to the facts of your case; your family.

3.  Excessive Billings.  Do you get sticker shock each month when you examine your divorce attorney's invoice?  More troubling: do you even get a monthly invoice?  Although many lawyers will have you believe that family law is "rocket science", it is not.  If you are being billed more than $250 per hour for non-court related tasks such as preparing "summaries", checklists, or budgets, you are getting fleeced.

One trick unethical lawyers employ is to bill your file at the end of the proceeding, after you cut your deal, and after they see what's available for their fees.  Often in such cases, a premium is baked into the final fee.  Get your fee agreement in writing at the beginning of the process and insist on monthly invoices.  When you receive the invoices, open them immediately as you would any other bill and examine them for accuracy.  If you do not agree with items on the invoice, call the lawyer to discuss it right away; it is more difficult to raise fee issues several months down the road.

4.  Arrogant and Antagonistic.  The "old-school" image of a classic lawyer is that she holds herself above everyone else; is smarter than everyone and not afraid to prove it over and over again.  These lawyers carry themselves with a certian touch of, er, arrogance.

In the trenches of family law, however, the real trick is to find a reasonable solution to your specific issues that works for everyone, particularly if there are young children.  Arrogance is not a trait that gets this done.  Does your lawyer show condescension toward you or does he repeatedly become antagonistic toward opposing counsel?  If so, this is a sign of weakness, not strength.  You may want to consider changing counsel.

5.  Too Many Excuses.  If your divorce lawyer lacks candor, fire him immediately.  Unless he can effectively communicate with you on time regarding your specific issues; unless she follows through and does what she says, delivering service in your case on time, you have a big problem.

We hope these tips help you identify whether you are on the right road with your divorce attorney.  After all, your life is in their hands.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Proposed Divorce Legislation Distinguishes Marital From Separate Property

Two new bills pending in the Michigan legislature attempt to address a long-perceived problem in Michigan family law: how to classify property [separate or marital] in a divorce proceeding.  This legislative proposal has judges and divorce attorneys up in arms.

The tie-barred bills, 4672 and 4673, introduced by Livonia Republican John Walsh, propose standards for the division of marital property, and comingled marital and separate property; create a presumption of non-division for separate property; and revises the procedures by which a family court could "invade" one spouse's separate property and award it to the other spouse.

In Michigan, a family court judge's power to apportion property in a divorce comes strictly from statutes; a confusing patchwork of four separate statutes, to be precise.  Because of this legislative patchwork, a significant body of common law has developed over the past 30-years addressing the classification and division of property.

Although every divorce case is decided on its own merit, the present state of divorce law allows the distinct possibility, if sufficent and compelling factors are proven, for the invasion of separate property.  The new legislation is largely viewed as making such an invasion more difficult, if not impossible.

Birmingham divorce attorney James P. Cunningham summarized the problem in a 2008 Michigan Bar Journal article, calling for legislation to "fill the gap" between the cases.  Cunningham was on the floor of the house in Lansing last week to testify as an expert about the need for this legislation and, presumably, to endorse the content of Walsh's bills.

So why such a fuss from the family court bench and bar?  First, they contend that Walsh is fast-tracking the legislation without input from their professional organizations.  Second, these groups also assert the proposed measures are grossly unfair to the non-propertied spouse.

When cornered by a reporter at the Capitol last week, a lobbist for the bills denied they were being fast-tracked but wryly noted that the family court bar was a veritable "graveyard" for good ideas.

Is this going to be a case of the rich getting richer?  The so-called "missionaries for the family" certainly think so and are determined to quash the measures; you should have seen the chatter about these bills appearing on the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law listserve...

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Parental Divorce Reduction Act

New Mexico state senator Mark Boitano introduced a bill last February titled the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.  The legislative intent behind the bill was to reduce unnecessary divorce, reduce family court litigation, and educate parents about the effect of divorce on their children.

Noble objectives; unworkable mechanics.  This bill basically died shortly after its introduction to the New Mexico state senate, even prior to being assigned to a committee.  For some reason, despite the death of this bill, it recently has received significant blog attention from family law pundits.

Perhaps the bill made headlines because of its attempt to introduce a significant counseling requirement for divorcing couples, followed by an 8-month "cooling off" period.  The text of the bill specifically mentions counseling topics such as domestic violence, drug abuse and alcoholism, and infidelity.

Many divorcing couples do not have these issues.  Those that do are not in the mind set to benefit from court required counseling; they just want their divorce over with, and quickly.

The best time to counsel individuals about the harmful effects of divorce on their children, addiction, domestic violence, and other family-related issues is prior to a marriage, not at the end of one.  On the other hand, many readers will share my opinion that such matters are not germane to government-imposed counseling.

Sadly, divorce will continue to be a permanent feature to our social landscape.

http://www.clarkstsonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Fathers See Gains in County Family Courts

Do the regularly maintained statistics support the contention that fathers are getting more time with their children in family courts?  To borrow a lyric from the 70’s band, Boston, “it’s more than a feeling”.

 

Divorce records maintained by the Michigan Department of Community Health reflect a trend that family law professionals have observed, and perhaps helped influence; fathers with joint custody and equal parenting time.

While family law attorneys will no doubt acknowledge this trend, hard statistics are difficult to garner.  Custody is still decided on a “case-by-case”, county by county, basis.

The form used by MDCH to collect information about divorces has a field to designate custody of minor children involved in a case.  The person completing the form, usually an attorney, selects from the basic options of joint custody, or designates custody to mother, or father.

Per usual, however, the devil is in the details.  For many practicing family law, the formal custody designation set forth in a judgment of divorce or custody order is merely a label, and a poor one at that.

Joint legal custody is usually a given; an accepted starting point.  Physical custody, however, is a more contentious battlefield.  The phrase “physical custody” does not even appear in the Michigan Child Custody Act; it is a mechanism used by family law attorneys and family court judges to identify a custodial parent.

The more significant provision is the parenting schedule set forth in the judgment.  Not only does that schedule establish how much actual contact the minor children get with each parent, it also determines the child support obligation for each parent.

Purely anecdotal evidence from our recent divorce cases is consistent with the trend that Fathers are awarded joint custody (legal and physical) more often and, roughly, equal parenting time.  One size, however, does not fit all.

An article titled Throwaway Dads, from the Michigan Bar Journal from 10-years ago, decrying a gender bias against fathers, provides an interesting barometer relative to the climate change in Michigan’s county family courts.

There must be good reasons to establish where the children of a divorce will live, and even better reasons to limit them from the home of one of their parents.  Focusing on the parenting schedule rather than the custody label is the real trend at work here.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

SCOTUS: No Right to Attorney in Child Support Civil Contempt Proceeding

As the High Court's term comes to an end this week, SCOTUS is issuing opinions by the day.  One of those announced this week was the South Carolina case involving a father's contempt proceeding for failure to pay his child support.

The case, Turner v Rogers, involved a series of contempt proceedings conducted in the family court.  Father failed to pay his support, so he was repeatedly jailed, once for a 12-month stint.  Neither father nor mother were represented by counsel in the proceedings.

The case wound its way through the South Carolina court system.  By the time the case arrived at the SCOTUS, Turner had long-completed his 12-month stint in the county jail.

SCOTUS, in reversing his conviction, nevertheless held that a person involved in civil contempt hearings, as a matter of Due Process, was not entitled to an attorney.  The reasons for this are because the opposing party is not the state but rather, the mother of the children.  Also, the High Court found that in such proceedings, Due Process is satisfied by providing the support payor with a form to elicit financial information, providing him notice of a hearing, and by conducting a brief hearing on the payor's finances relative to his obligation.

In this case, Turner's conviction was reversed (even though he completed his jail stint) because he was not provided with a financial disclosure form, was not provided an attorney, and the family court erred by failing to make relevant factual findings that father was able to make the support payments when it found him in contempt.  Basic stuff.

Bottom line: pay your child support obligations.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com