Category: General

A group of legislators in New Hampshire is proposing to make joint custody or shared parenting a presumption in the state. Here’s a story from The Nashua Telegraph. The package of two bills the legislators are proposing would seek to encourage parents to plan together how they will take care of their children, operating from the premise that “Children do best when both parents have a stable and meaningful involvement in their lives.”

Continue reading “New Hampshire – Presumption of Shared Parenting”

I came across an excellent article today in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Solangel Maldonado, “Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 921 (2005). The article isn’t posted yet on the law review’s web site, but I found a copy of it on Seton Hall’s site.

Maldonado, an Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall, argues that the law has influenced social norms, most specifically in this context by its treatment of no-fault divorce and child support. She cites with approval arguments that the increased enforcement of child support (from a fairly casual enforcement level in the mid-20th century to decisive and active enforcement today), leaves fathers with the impression their primary contribution to parenting is economic. Every divorce lawyer (and nearly everyone else) has repeatedly heard from divorced fathers the lament that “I’m just a meal ticket.”
Continue reading “Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Remain Active Parents”

The Georgia House of Representatives has passed a bill to revise the Georgia child support guidelines. Here’s a story from the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

The bill goes now to the Senate. If it passes there and becomes law, Georgia will become the last state in the south to adopt the “income shares” model for calculating child support.

Continue reading “Georgia – Child Support Changes”

The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a prenuptial agreement cannot limit the alimony between divorcing spouses, because to do would violate public policy. Here’s a story on the ruling from the Argus Leader. And here’s another from the Rapid City Journal. I haven’t been able to find the decision yet on the legal databases.

Continue reading “South Dakota: Prenup Can’t Limit Alimony”

I’ve already told you about the Judges Guide for contested custody cases with domestic violence present. Here’s a thoughtful critique of it from Joan Zorza in Washington, D.C. You can check out all her work at her web site.

Continue reading “Critique of Judges’ Guide on Custody”

Statistics Canada says repeat divorces — those involving a spouse who has been divorced before — have tripled in 30 years. Here’s a brief description from the Statistics Canada site. In 1973, only 5.4% of divorces involved husbands who had already divorced at least once. 30 years later, that figure has increased to 16.2%. The increase is similar for wives, from 5.4% to 15.7%.

Continue reading “Repeat Divorces Up in Canada”

My friend Liz Kates in Pompano Beach, FL let me know about this one. It’s a guide for judges to use in handling custody battles when there’s domestic violence present. I found it on her library of custody resources. I don’t handle adversarial cases, but I found the guide helpful.

A survey indicates that almost 25% of divorcees considered divorce during their first two years of marriage. Here’s one article on the survey from the Telegraph. Here’s another from the Daily Record. The survey is commissioned by the London law firm Misheon de Reya, and it also shows that about a third of divorces occur withiin the first five years of marriage.

About a fourth of those divorcing blamed lack of sexual intimacy, and about one in 10 blamed the other spouse’s family. The big three reasons blamed by spouses for their divorce, however, were “drifting apart,” infidelity, and money. The peak divorce age for women is 25-29, and the peak for men is 30-34.

You already know how I feel about this. Here’s another story about keeping divorce records secret, this one from the Cincinnati Post. The lawyers like it, the judges like it, the clerks like it, even the litigants like it. Only the reporters, and a weird dude like me every now and then, will criticize it. The problem is that it’s bad for the system of justice. Hrumph.

My new friend Glen Smith posted to our divorce lawyers mailing list this quick and thoroughly readable description of the procedures involved in proving immigration status by marriage. It’s the clearest statement I’ve seen yet, and Glen has agreed to let me share it with you. It’s in response to a question about a woman who now believes her husband married her solely to make himself eligible for a green card.
Continue reading “Quick Review of “Green Card Marriages””

This makes sense. The European Union is developing a pan-European divorce code, so couples who marry across national borders within Europe could have some certainty about what law would govern if they were to split later. Here’s the story from the Telegraph. These couples who marry now are at risk for lengthy and expensive trans-national struggles over jurisdiction and choice of laws.
Continue reading “Pan-European Prenuptial Agreement”

I’m not sure what to make of this. Here’s a story from the BBC about a London art gallery that offers customers buying its art a prenuptial contract along with the art. This way, they can decide in advance who gets the art if they marry and then split up. The gallery says at least one purchasing couple has already taken advantage of the offer. And so it goes.

You may want to read the interim statement from a group of professionals working to preserve marriage, The Marriage Movement. The report, titled What Next for the Marriage Movement?, states the good news that divorce is declining slightly in the U.S.; it approvingly describes the many initiatives, faith-based and otherwise, designed to strengthen marriage; and it acknowledges frankly that the members of the organization disagree on whether to permit same-sex marriage.

Continue reading “The Marriage Movement – What Next?”

Here’s a nice little book that came across my desk today. It’s called Thinking Divorce? Think Again – Seven Realities You Need to Know.

Don’t let the title fool you. It may sound like Author Lorie Fowlke is set to tell you all the reasons you shouldn’t divorce, and in fact each chapter starts by stating a negative effect of divorce. When you actually read her text, however, you find a simple little how-to book to get through some of the thornier issues divorcing people face.

Continue reading “Thinking Divorce? Think Again”

You need to read this column by Howard Troxler in the St. Petersburg Times on the discussion in Florida about keeping divorce court records secret. There’s a move afoot to restrict sharply the information that the public will be able to see about divorce cases. Predictably, journalists think that’s a terrible idea.

Continue reading “Keeping Divorce Records Secret?”

Should courts give preference in child custody to the parent who is more likely to be cooperative with the the other parent? In many states, the answer is yes — the so called “friendly parent” doctrine. Here’s an intriguing article from Washington family lawyer Margaret Dore in the Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, arguing that the “friendly parent” doctrine and the related concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome are harmful for children and should be abolished by courts.
Continue reading ““Unfriendly Parent” Doctrine for Child Custody”

A state Supreme Court justice has ruled that a husband’s continued refusal to interact socially with his wife is grounds for a divorce. Here’s the story from Newsday. Even though his title makes it sound like he sits on the state’s highest court, Justice Anthony Falanga is on the intermediate court of appeals in New York. He ordered a trial to occur in which the wife could present the facts she says support her claim.

A spouse who has “completely refused to engage in any form of social interaction with the plaintiff spouse for more than one year prior to” the start of the divorce “without cause or condonation has unquestionably failed to fulfill a basic obligation arising from the marital contract.”