Arizona Family Law Lawyer & Attorney : NRG - Nirenstein Ruotolo Group

NEW YORK (AP) -- Three years after tying the knot in a spectacular, over-the-top affair that caused some backlash, Star Jones has decided to end her marriage to banker Al Reynolds.Star Jones and Al Reynolds, here in 2006, married in late 2004.The 46-year-old TV personality quietly filed divorce papers March 26 in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan. The records are sealed, syndicated entertainment show "Entertainment Tonight" reported Wednesday. For more information on Arizona Divorce Lawyers, contact NRG.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you are interested in learning more about custody evaluations, check out this book.

If you need to see a Arizona custody lawyer, contact www.nrglaw.net for a complete analysis of your situation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LONDON, England (AP) -- The ex-wife of former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney said Friday that she snapped when she poured a jug of water over the head of her former husband's lawyer during their bitter divorce battle in Britain's courts.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Kimora Lee Simmons has already moved on, but she took steps to make it official by filing for divorce from her husband of seven years, entertainment mogul Russell Simmons.For information on Arizona divorce law, see NRG Family Law.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In California, an Order modifying child support is reversed where the court erred in imputing $3,000 of non-taxable income per month based on husband's mortgage-free housing. For information on Arizona child support issues, contact NRG Family Law at www.nrglaw.net.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Messages left on voicemail can be introduced as evidence.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

A woman whose prenuptial agreement precludes either spouse from seeking legal fees from the other in the event of a divorce may nonetheless request a fee award against her millionaire husband, the New York Appellate Division rules. The court says that while the bar on fees is not inherently invalid, it is against public policy in this case due to the immense disparity in the couple's finances. It also announces a rule to be applied when dealing with fee waiver provisions. See Kessler v, Kessler, N.Y. App. Div., No. 2004-04773, 7/11/06.

For assitance with prenuptial agreements, contact NRG - Nirenstein Ruotolo Group, P.L.C.

• Print
• Comments

The paternity by estoppel doctrine does not contain an exception for men who accept the role of fatherhood based on misrepresentations by the subject child's mother, the New York Court of Appeals says. Explaining that the mother's truthfulness is irrelevant and that the child's best interests control, it affirms filiation and support orders entered against a New York man who had been led to believe he fathered a child in Guyana after dating a woman there in 1995.  See Shondel J. v. Mark D., N.Y., No. 46, 7/6/06.

For issues regarding paternity, and other child-related legal issues, contact NRG - Nirenstein Ruotolo Group, P.L.C.

 

• Print
• Comments

This New York case, brought to our attention by Jeanne M. Hanna, Esq., author of "Updates in Michigan Family Law" is a prime example of the lengths people are willing to go to keep the marital residence from the other spouse.  See the Article.

For Arizona Divorce Issues, contact Nirenstein Ruotolo Group.

• Print
• Comments (1)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona's circuit court) recently ruled that non-custodial parents with court-ordered visitation rights have a liberty interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children. Brittain v. Hansen (06/22/06 - No. 03-57012).

For Arizona Custody Issues contact NRG Family Law.

• Print
• Comments

Trial court erred in holding that a 15-year-old girl's marriage to an adult man was void ad initio because they did not obtain judicial consent, the Colorado Court of Appeals held June 15. Pointing out that Colorado recognizes common-law marriage, the court noted that there is no statutory provision indicating that the state does not follow the common-law age of consent for marriage, which is age 12 for girls. Thus, it said that so long as all other elements of a common-law marriage are present, the couple's marriage is valid. In re J.M.H., Colo. Ct. App., No. 04CA0740, 6/15/06.

For information regarding Common Law Marriages in Arizona, contact NRG Family Law, Arizona's Premier Family Law Firm.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Trial court erred in holding that a 15-year-old girl's marriage to an adult man was void ad initio because they did not obtain judicial consent, the Colorado Court of Appeals held June 15. Pointing out that Colorado recognizes common-law marriage, the court noted that there is no statutory provision indicating that the state does not follow the common-law age of consent for marriage, which is age 12 for girls. Thus, it said that so long as all other elements of a common-law marriage are present, the couple's marriage is valid. In re J.M.H., Colo. Ct. App., No. 04CA0740, 6/15/06)

For information regarding Common Law Marriages in Arizona, contact NRG Family Law, Arizona's Premier Family Law Firm.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

The shared intention of a child's parents to abandon the family's habitual residence in favor of a new one is a valid benchmark in determining wrongful removal and retention of the child under the Hague Convention on child abduction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided.

For information on International Custody Issues contact NRG Family Law.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the divorce court did not err in rejecting a husband's claim that under the parties' marital settlement agreement he is entitled to ownership of a patent application that lists the wife as the sole inventor.

Upholding an award of the application to the wife, Chief Judge John Pelander noted that while federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over questions of patent validity and infringement, the question of who owns the patent rights is typically a question for state courts. He observed that case law makes clear that the patent right initially vests in the inventor, who may then transfer that right to another.

Click here to read the full opinion.

• Print
• Comments

A lump-sum payment made by a man to his ex-wife pursuant to a 1997 agreement that settled their dispute over modification of the alimony portion of their 1976 divorce decree is governed by the version of §71 of the Internal Revenue Code as it stood before its revision in 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Johnson v. Commissioner, 9th Cir., No. 04-72322, 3/28/06).

It thus upheld the Tax Court's ruling that as the agreement was a modification of a pre-1984 decree that did not specify that the revision (removing the limitation of deductibility to periodic alimony payments) was to apply, the lump sum was not deductible.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

A German court order setting out a divorced father's visitation rights and child support obligation did not modify his presumed right to joint custody under German law, and thus was not grounds for denying his petition for his child's return after she was taken to the United States by her mother without his consent,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Bader v. Kramer, 4th Cir., No. 05-1480, 4/17/06).

Pointing out that no German court had ever entered an order granting the mother sole custody, the court said that the father retained at least joint custody rights and was entitled to proceed with his petition under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

The following is an article by Mark Sullivan, who is an expert on Military Issues in Family Law.

Mark Sullivan, is a retired Army Reserve JAG colonel who practices with Sullivan & Grace, P.A. in Raleigh, NC. A board-certified specialist in family law and past president of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, he is chairman of the ABA Section of Family Law Military Committee. Mr. Sullivan is also the author of the Section's soon-to-be published, The Military Divorce Handbook, which will be available for distribution this Spring.

Download file.

For Arizona military divorce issues, contact NRG.

• Print
• Comments

In US v. Smith, (02/08/06 - No. 04-2448),
a condition of supervised release imposed on defendant to stay away from his minor daughter is affirmed over his claims that it denies him his fundamental right to associate with family members, and lacks any reasonable relationship to the permissible goals of supervised release. Click here for the opinion.

For Arizona child custody and visitation issues, contact NRG.

• Print
• Comments

A man lacks standing to appeal a tax court determination that his ex-wife was entitled to "innocent spouse" relief, even though the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act grants a non-requesting spouse the right to participate in innocent spouse relief proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Dec. 23.

Click here for full text of opinion.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

The California Appellate Court in Schmir v. Schmir (11/16/05 - No. B175397), found that the trial court order terminating plaintiff's monthly spousal support from her ex-husband was in err and reversed and modified, where the evidence supported terminating the support when the trial court abused its discretion in doing it so abruptly as to deny plaintiff reasonable notice and an opportunity to find a job.

Click here for full case opinion.

• Print
• Comments

PHOENIX -- It should become easier for the thousands of Arizonans going to court each year on family law matters like divorce and child support to get their cases resolved, or at least to understand what's going on in the courthouse.

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor today signed an order to implement a massive new set of statewide rules just for family law cases. Most of the rules take effect in January.

For all Arizona Family Law issues, contact NRG.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

One way parents can increase their child's chance of succeeding in school is to forget a good relationship with his/her teacher. Parents magazine published an article, Be an A+ Parent by Nancy Seid, which gives several practical tips toward that end.

For information on Arizona Child Custody issues contact NRG.

Thanks to Ben Stevens at South Carolina Family Law Blog.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Denial of plaintiff-father's petition for the return of his child to Australia is reversed where the district court incorrectly found that plaintiff consented to the removal of the child to the United States under article 13(a) of the Hague Convention. See Baxter v. Baxter (09/15/05 - No. 04-3228).

For international custody issues, contact NRG.

• Print
• Comments

A non-custodial parent has a protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his or her child, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided 08/12/05 in Swipies v. Kofka, 8th Cir., No. 04-3244.

The court's recognition of this interest came in a case where a deputy sheriff had, on his own initiative, made an emergency removal of a child who was visiting her non-custodial father and then contested the father's claim that his due process rights had been violated by the removal.

Click here for the full opinion.

For information on Arizona child custody issues, contact NRG.

• Print
• Comments

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

• Print
• Comments

Arizona ranks among the lowest in ability to collect child support arrears. Click here for the U.S. Department of Child Support Enforcement's list.

http://www.nrglaw.net
http://www.azfamilylawblog.com

• Print
• Comments

Effective March 1, 2005, filing fees in Maricopa County Superior Court have increased as much as $40 for family court filings.

It now costs $276 to file a dissolution of marriage petition; the filing fee for a response costs $231.

In order to save yourself time and unnecessary aggravation, we recommend contacting the Clerk of Court prior to issuing a filing fee check for other filings.

• Print
• Comments

We found this article on a friend of our's Kansas Family Law Blog site, and thought it may be helpful to all of the military personnel embroiled in family law disputes. Click here for the full American Bar Association article.

• Print
• Comments (1)

It is apparent that this story won't go away. Here, is more on the juicy allegation-ridden divorce of the moment. Click here.

• Print
• Comments

New York has continuing jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving a child who, at the time his father retained him following visitation, had lived in Norway with the custodial mother for two years, the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, has decided in EB v. EFB, N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 9159/02, 1/4/05.

Addressing for the first time application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act in a case where the underlying custody order was issued prior to the Act's effective date and the modification request was made after such date, the court rebuffed the mother's contention that Norway has home state jurisdiction under the Act's predecessor, the UCCJA. It said that because the father remained in New York following the parties' divorce and issuance of the custody order, the state retained jurisdiction

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Better enforcement of parental responsibility across Europe comes into effect today.

Family law rules known as Brussels IIa help to clarify the relationship between family law in England and Wales and the European Union.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Generally, in order for someone to claim a child as a dependent, he or she must provide at least 50% of the child's support during the tax year. For couples who are still married and living together, claiming kids as dependents is usually a slam-dunk.

Things get complicated, however, when parents divorce or separate. Now, only one of you can claim the dependent exemption. (The IRS will come down hard if both of you try to claim it; they cross-reference dependents' Social Security numbers to make sure taxpayers aren't doing this.)

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (2)

In order to qualify as child support, the payments recieved by an ex-spouse must be designated as child support in the divorce or separation agreement. If the agreement lumps the payments together as "family support" or "alimony," or doesn't otherwise designate a specific portion of each payment as child support, none of the payment will be considered child support for tax purposes.

This can have adverse tax consequences for the recipient of child support payments, because family support or alimony is taxable to the recipient. So instead of receiving nontaxable child support, the ex-spouse will be receiving alimony, which is taxable to the payee, regardless of what the payee actually uses the money for.

Copyright © 2004 Nolo

• Print
• Comments

Check out Grant D. Griffiths' new divorce law blog on everything to do with Kansas law. It is at http://gdgrifflaw.typepad.com.

• Print
• Comments

Many life circumstances - marriage, divorce, widowhood, the birth of a child - have their own sets of Social Security rules. These rules can be confusing and daunting, especially for women who are applying for Social Security benefits for the first time. The Social Security Administration has recently launched Social Security Online for Women, a web site specifically designed for women

Information included on the site includes a Social Security benefits planner, getting a Social Security number on your divorced husband's record, changing your name with the Social Security system and getting a new Social Security number if, for example, this might help to alleviate any harassment or domestic violence.

There are also answers to some frequently asked questions such as: Are you entitled to divorced spouse's benefits?, When do divorced spouse's benefits end?, and What happens if you remarry?

• Print
• Comments (1)

Could life insurance or pension benefits meant for you go to a spouse from a previous marriage instead? A recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling (Egelhoff v. Egelhoff) makes this a potential cause for concern.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)

Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reform Act of 1986 (COBRA), health insurance coverage provided by an employer can be continued for up to 36 months by an ex-spouse. Technically, this law applies only to employers with 20 or more employees. However, most states have laws that apply COBRA-type benefits to employees of smaller companies.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Pending bankruptcy legislation could affect future child or spousal support payments. These payments currently receive priority status, meaning they must be paid before credit card companies can forcibly collect their debts. The new legislation makes it harder for individuals to wipe out these debts by making it harder to qualify for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Under the new law, most debtors will have to file under Chapter 13, which requires payment of at least part of these debts. The problem is that each dollar of debt that survives bankruptcy competes directly with support obligations.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)

The following article discusses the movement to pass legislation in all 50 states mandating a presumption of 50/50 custody.
Food for thought?

By Lynne Gold-Bikin

A movement by fathers' groups and their current wives to have every state legislature mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody for all children as a starting point in every contested custody case has created a new area of family law. If you inquire about the rationale behind this movement, the groups will respond that they have a constitutional right to raise their children and, further, that this presumption will alleviate all custody problems. Further, they say, the "best interest of the child" standard is bogus and is just used to deprive fit parents of their rights. Other arguments made by these dads include: the criteria used to award custody are unconstitutionally vague; there are no scientific data to support the continued use of the "best interests" standard, and the standards are arbitrarily utilized. If the legislatures would only mandate a presumption of 50/50 custody at the outset, these groups claim, there would be no interparental conflict, no wasting of family resources, and no shattered lives.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (6)

In a federal diversity action where the father fails to establish any credible evidence to remove jurisdiction, jurisdiction will be returned to the child's home state. See, Melnick v. Melnick, 04 Civ. 5993, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, November 15, 2004.

In Melnick, the parties were divorced in Connecticut in 1997. There was one minor child of the marriage and the parties had continuing disagreements regarding the father's visitation rights with respect to the minor child. A supplemental visitation agreement was drafted in 2003 under the supervision of the Connecticut Family Court. Thereafter, the father relocated to New York, and filed an action in the New York courts, claiming the mother continued to violate the parties' visitation agreements. The mother removed the matter as a diversity case to the federal courts. The federal court dismissed the case and remanded it to the Connecticut courts. It held that the father's complaint was insufficient to find that any of the father's causes of action were rooted in New York. It considered that the parties were divorced in Connecticut, and the subject minor child's home state continued to be Connecticut. The father's complaint only alleged, in conclusory terms, without much empirical evidence, that there was any connection to New York. The mother did not dispute that the father was entitled to remove the child to New York for the purpose of temporary visitation.

• Print
• Comments

The following article is a must read for anyone preparing to ask the court in a divorce action to issue temporary orders pending a final resolution of all issues at trial.

By Curtis J. Romanowski

Part One of a Two-Part Series.

The pendente lite phase of a case and the results of a pendente lite application are critical for setting the tone for the balance of the case, and often affect whatever final decisions or agreements are reached. An inequitable result could seriously compromise one party's case. Typically, pendente lite motions provide judges with an introduction to the parties, including the details of the marriage, separation, children and other relevant factors surrounding the case. As a rule, first impressions are usually important, and the pendente lite application is no exception.

Depending on the results, pendente lite applications have the potential to create leverage for the balance of the case, spur client management and relational problems, and escalate litigation costs attributable to the entrenchment of the "winner" and the commitment of the "loser" to retake lost ground.

It is, therefore, essential to provide judges with sound, hard evidence at the pendente lite phase, that will enable them to deal fairly with both sides pending the submission of final proofs. An unfairly skewed pendente lite award can thwart fair outcomes and is simply one of the worst things that can happen to both parties. What about voluntary arrangements? Money being paid or received voluntarily might quickly become the status quo. Consequently, if the arrangement is unacceptable to either party, a pendente lite support application should be filed to establish a more appropriate support amount.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (2)

Don't air the dirty laundry of divorce in front of kids

By DR. JOYCE BROTHERS

DEAR DR. BROTHERS: My friend is going through a horrible divorce, and although I can't imagine acting so awfully to my husband and having him act that way to me, I have to admit that I wouldn't know what to do to make things seem fine or even OK for the kids. They are fighting over their two children, who are only 5 and 7 years old and don't fully grasp things. I have tried to gently tell my friend that she shouldn't go around the house screaming and crying about her ex, because I see that it makes her kids want to comfort her, or else it makes them cry, too -- but she seems to be in a daze. What can I do to help her and her kids? -- M.I.

DEAR M.I.: I am afraid there is very little you can do, except perhaps offer to take the children to the zoo or on some other outing to give them a break where the parent won't be trying to poison the very air that they breathe. I have very little sympathy for a parent who airs the dirty laundry in front of vulnerable young children or falls apart to the extent that it requires the kids to act like grown-ups, comforting Mom instead of the other way around. This is simply wrong and will come back to haunt her, I guarantee.

This is a time when the kids need extra nurturing, attention and a smooth transition to a new household or visitation situation. If your friend is trying to turn the kids against the husband and he is not a bad father, shame on her. You can help make sure that the kids know they are loved and that their mother and father are both good people. Explain that they are "not themselves" at the moment but that everything will turn out all right. Just watch out that you don't get caught in the crossfire; things sound pretty out of control around there.

• Print
• Comments

Leah Hoffmann's article in Forbes magazine is a good read for anyone considering going through the divorce process, or even better, for anyone currently involved in the process.

In essence, she tells everyone that "getting a divorce is a messy business, both personally and financially". Her advice -- "don't be in such a hurry to reach a settlement that you make these costly financial mistakes". Click here for the full article.

• Print
• Comments

A Texas court erred in designating Illinois as the home state of a divorcing couple's child, who had not spent six consecutive months in the latter state at the time of the divorce, the Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, held Feb. 10th in Nagubadi v. Nagubadi, Tex. Ct. App., No. 13-02-621-CV, 2/10/05.

The Court found that the parents and child were all living in Texas when the mother filed for divorce but that by the time the final decree was entered the mother was completing a two-year medical residency program in Dayton, Ohio, and the father was living in Chicago.

• Print
• Comments

The fact that a divorcing husband's separate assets grew significantly over the many years of his marriage was not an unforeseeable change in circumstances justifying voiding the parties' premarital agreement, in which both spouses waived any interest in property obtained by the other during the marriage, the Michigan Court of Appeals held Feb. 8th in Reed v. Reed, Mich. Ct. App., No. 248895, 2/8/05).

The court also ruled that the benefit accruing to one party from the disparate growth of his or her assets is not a changed circumstance rendering such an agreement unenforceable. To read the full opinion, click here.

• Print
• Comments

This week, in Hicks v. Hicks, a Pennsylvania appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying a mother the right to baptize her 9-year-old daughter over the objection of the child's father. In doing so, the Court reversed the trial court order barring either parent from unilaterally baptizing the child and authorizing her to make her own choice at age 13.

To read the full opinion, click here.

• Print
• Comments

One writer believes that by continuing to use the guidelines that the federal government recommended against in 1987 (states should not use only one parent's income when calculating child support), Georgia continues to engage in bad public policy with adverse consequences for children and families. For the complete article, click here.

• Print
• Comments

Check out the "Children in the Middle" online parenting course. It is a useful resource for parents involved in a contested divorce or family court matter. This course is available on the Putting Kids First website.

• Print
• Comments

Itir Yakar
Daily Business Review
02-22-2005

A Broward County, Fla., judge did not improperly delegate his decision-making authority on attorney fees in a hotly contested divorce case, because he gave oral instructions before the parties drafted their proposals and because his decision incorporated elements from both sides, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal has ruled.

In its unanimous ruling last month, the 4th DCA distinguished the case of Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom from that of Perlow v. Berg-Perlow. In Perlow, the Florida Supreme Court last year chastised a Palm Beach Circuit senior judge for letting the lawyer for one of the parties in a divorce case write the judge's order.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

OMAHA, Neb. -- The state of Nebraska is trying to collect child support from a dead man. This is not child support he owed when he was still alive, but instead, the debt accumulated after he died. To read the full story, click here.

• Print
• Comments

By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published in the New York Times on February 19, 2005

Everybody loves to hate the so-called deadbeat dads. But because the laws made little effort to differentiate between the wealthy and the out-of-work and incarcerated, the laws have produced consequences for poor men that are vexing local and national policy makers.

Around the country, child support arrears have been piling up at a staggering rate since the enactment of these laws. A decade ago the federal government said fathers owed $31 billion in back child support; as of 2003, the last year for which data was available, the total had more than triple that to reach $96 billion. Changes in reporting may account for a portion of the increase. To read the full article, click here.

• Print
• Comments

Associated Press
February 18, 2005

A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

"Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties," Judge John G. Baker wrote in the 22-page ruling.

"That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children's other parent." To read the complete article, click here.

• Print
• Comments

Here, we continue with our comments on the Revised Arizona Child Support Guidelines, effective January 1, 2005.

Section 24 -- Modification

Section 24 discusses modifications to child support orders. The reference to "prima facie evidence" was changed to "evidence". Many self-represented litigants use the guidelines to calculate child support; such legal terminology was thought to be confusing.

Section 18 -- Travel Expenses Associated With Visitation (Parenting Time)

Section 18 addresses allocation of children's travel expenses for parenting time purposes. The new guidelines clarify that for this purpose "long distance" generally means more than 100 miles in distance. The change was made to be consistent with A.R.S. Section 25-408(C)(2)'s requirement regarding notification when a parent intends to relocate a child more than 100 miles or more. Defining the distance requirement provides clear direction for the court when allocating travel costs.

Section 12 -- Equal Custody

The two paragraphs at the end of the prior section 10 discuss the method to use in equal physical custody calculations. This function is separate and distinct from the parenting time adjustment described in another section but is frequently confused with that adjustment. The new Section 12 was separated out to emphasize the separate methodology to use for equal physical custody cases.

• Print
• Comments

Here is another change:

Section 4 -- Duration of Child Support

This section has been added to provide for a presumptive termination date and constitutes the most significant change of the entire revision. The hope is that this change will alleviate some problems with overpayments at the termination of the order for child support when the payor is current. It also is anticipated that the change will assist the Division of Child Support Enforcement to better automate the termination of the child support order in the ATLAS system.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

As you may now, effective January 1, 2005, there have been numerous changes to the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Over the next couple of days, we will make note of some of the more significant changes.

Section 2 -- Premises

A custodial parent may be ordered to pay child support.

A premise is added to clarify that the custodial parent could be ordered to pay child support. This can occur in the unusual circumstance where a custodial parent earns an extremely high income and the non-custodial parent earns a low income and exercises in excess of 100 days of parenting time per year.

This was not seen as a substantive change to the Guidelines. It was apparently intended only to make explicit what was previously implicit.

• Print
• Comments

In Arizona, all records regarding a divorce action are public record. This is not necessarily the case in other states. For example, in New York only the parties and their attorneys of record are allowed access to the file.

For obvious reasons, Arizona's policy raises concerns for litigants going through the process of divorce. The following article addresses California's approach.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

Rush Limbaugh's divorce has been "signed and sealed" in a Florida courthouse, the Palm Beach Daily News reports.

The popular radio host returns to bachelor status after ending his marriage with his third wife, Marta.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

By IRS Newswire
Feb 15, 2005

From the IRS, here is Tax Tip 2005-32.

When the end of matrimony leads to the start of alimony, how does it affect your taxes? Alimony payments you receive are taxable to you in the year received, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

The amount is reported on line 11 of Form 1040. You cannot use Form 1040A or Form 1040EZ. The person making the payment may claim a deduction in the year paid on Form 1040. You must give the person who paid the alimony your Social Security number or you may have to pay a $50 penalty.

If your decree or agreement calls for both alimony and child support and specifies amounts for each, only the alimony is taxable. Because no taxes are withheld from alimony payments, you may need to make estimated tax payments or increase the amount withheld from your paycheck.

For more information, see Publication 504, Divorced or Separated Individuals, Tax Topics 406, Alimony Received, and 452, Alimony Paid. Publications and forms may be downloaded or ordered by calling toll free 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).

Helpful Links:

Publication 504, Divorced or Separated Individuals (PDF 171K)
Tax Topic 406, Alimony Received
Tax Topic 452, Alimony Paid

• Print
• Comments

A Florida appeals court has refused to allow a woman to use evidence obtained by illegally planting spyware on her husband's computer to support her case in their bitter divorce proceedings.

Beverley Ann O'Brian installed a surveillance program called Spector on the computer used by her husband James. She obtained transcripts of private on-line chats between James and another woman with whom he was playing Yahoo Dominoes, according to court papers.

The Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, found that evidence obtained in this way could not be used in court because it had been intercepted - an offence under federal wiretapping regulations and the Florida Security of Communications Act 2003. It banned Mrs O'Brian from using spyware in the future and from disclosing any information obtained from the surveillance.

Mrs. O'Brian appealed, arguing that the evidence should have been admissible, as it had been obtained by copying information stored on the computer, and not through the interception of electronic communications.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments

This excerpt is from Jennifer Chambers' article that includes tips from the SMILE Program (Start Making It Livable for Everyone), an initiative that assists families throught the emotional portion of a divorce proceeding.

Parents should tell children about the divorce together if possible.

Children need to know, sometimes over and over, how they will be affected by the divorce, where they will go to school, where they will live, when they will see the other parent, friends and relatives, and who will take care of them should something happen to the parent with whom they live most of the time.

Children need reassurance that they are not to blame for the divorce.

Parents should answer children's questions honestly while avoiding unnecessary details.

Parents should discuss divorce-related issues in terms the children can understand. It is helpful to avoid terms such as "custody" and "visitation."

Parents should encourage children to talk about the divorce and their feelings and discuss problems openly.

Parents need to accept children's mood swings and emotional outbursts and not take them personally. Counseling or support groups may help. children resolve their feelings.

Children should be helped to accept the reality of the divorce and not be given false hope of reunion.

Parents should express their love and commitment to the children to help them feel secure.

• Print
• Comments

In Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05, it was held that the trial court erred as a matter of law in assuming jurisdiction over the custody aspect of a divorce case where the parties' child had never lived in Arkansas.

At trial, the resident father, who had requested custody in his divorce petition, acknowledged that the child had been born and resided in California, and said that the mother and child had also lived in Arizona and Nevada for brief periods. The mother, however, moved for a dismissal of the custody matter and submitted an affidavit maintaining that while she and the child had moved around the state, they had always resided in California. (The parties had separated prior to the child's birth in 2001.) The trial court held that it had custody jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

Examining the the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Court held that Arkansas clearly did not have home state jurisdiction because the child had never lived there. Likewise, the Court found that the father could not rely on significant connection jurisdiction, because the child had absolutely none with Arkansas. Further finding that this case did not present the situation in which another state declines jurisdiction, the Court also rejected the father's reliance on the UCCJEA provision under which Arkansas retains jurisdiction if no court of any other state would have jurisdiction.

Of note, the Father appeared without an attorney. Probably not the best idea when faced with a UCCJEA issue.

• Print
• Comments

An attorney representing the parents of a pregnant minor, who purportedly misled her child's father about whether she intended to put the baby up for adoption, is not liable for intentional interference with the parental relationship absent any evidence that the lawyer acted maliciously, the Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th District, ruled Feb. 8 in Sprouse v. Eisenman, Ohio Court of Appeals 10th Dist., No. 04AP-416, 2/8/05).

The Court explained that even if the lawyer did falsely assure the father that adoption was not on the horizon, the attorney was protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the baby's father failed to show