Tiger Woods Divorce Finally Done.
Tiger Woods is now officially divorced. The Decree of Divorce has been published. No particulars yet about specific divorce settlement terms.
For information on Arizona divorce, contact one of our lawyers at NGS.
Financial Support in Military Cases
Michael S. Archer and CPT Tricia L. Birdsell provide a detailed analysis regarding the pitfalls civilian attorneys can encounter in cases involving military support issues.
Military support issues arise frequently in Arizona due to the presence of Luke Airforce Base, as well as other military installations in the Southwest. If you or your spouse are in the military, each branch of service requires certain support obligations upon separation for both dependents and spouses. This article details the steps one must take in each branch of the military to obtain support, how to calculate the support obligation, as well as how a waiver of the obligation can be obtained by the military spouse.
Continue Reading...Sandra Bullock and Jesse James Finalize Divorce
The pair filed divorce papers under seal last week in Texas to finalize their divorce after their nearly five-year marriage crumbled amid reports of cheating by James, PEOPLE confirms.
The Oscar-winning actress, 45, initiated the divorce case in April in Texas, where she has a home. The papers cited "discord or conflict of personalities" as the reason for the split.
Bullock's rep confirmed Monday that the divorce is now final.
Though it's unclear if the two had a prenuptial agreement, James won't be entitled to spousal support since in Texas a spouse must be married for at least 10 years to qualify for support. In Arizona, there is no similar time requirement for a spouse to be entitled to spousal support, or as it is sometimes referred to as spousal maintenance and/or alimony.
NGS Wishes Attorney Brian D. Carroll, Esq. "All The Best"
It is with great sadness and also joy that Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC (NGS) announces the departure of Brian D. Carroll, Esq., an associate attorney with the firm, whose practice primarly focused on divorce and family court matters. Mr. Carroll began his legal career with NGS in its summer law clerk internship program and continued as an attorney after his admission to the State Bar of Arizona.
Mr. Carroll and his wife are relocating to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so that Mrs. Carroll may begin her two-year residence program in pediatric dentistry. Mr. Carroll will be sitting for the Pennsylvania Bar Examination this summer and expects to be practicing law in Pennsylvania by the end of 2010.
All of us at NGS wish Brian and his wife all the best in their future endeavors, and provide our heartfelt thanks and respect to Mr. Carroll for all the tireless effort and work that he has put forth on behalf of the Firm's clients in which representation he was involved. He will be missed.
Former 'Jon & Kate' star Jon Gosselin files for primary custody of kids
.jpg)
According to TMZ, John Gosselin has formally begun his quest for primary custody of his eight children with ex-wife Kate Gosselin.
The former Jon & Kate Plus 8 patriarch filed the legal papers requesting primary physical custody on Wednesday in Berks County, PA family court, according to a copy of the documents obtained by TMZ.
In addition, Jon has also requested a judge review the current child support arrangement -- claiming an arbitrator in the couple's divorce filing "failed to take into consideration the numerous factors provided for by the law in Pennsylvania," according to the documents.
CLE: Dividing The Family Business in Divorce
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC congratulates its partner, Victor A. Garnice, Esq., on his CLE presentation of "Dividing the Family Business in Divorce" earlier today.
Mr. Garnice, who has been a member of the bar for more than 33 years, is admitted to practice in Arizona. His main area of practice is Arizona divorce and family law. He handles trials and other complex matters.
Please feel free to contact him directly at our website or by telephone at 602.485.5800.
Recent Ruling: Default Divorce Decree
.jpg)
In Wigand v. Wigand, Wife appealed from an order vacating a default decree of dissolution. Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1 ,however, agreed and set the Arizona divorce decree aside.
In this case, Wife filed for divorce in February 2008, and requested spousal maintenance, an equitable division of the community property and debts, and attorneys’ fees. Her petition also alleged that Husband wasted community assets during the marriage. Husband, who was living and working in New Mexico, accepted and waived service of process.
Although Husband claimed that the parties were discussing a divorce settlement, Wife filed an application and affidavit for default, and the court subsequently entered a default decree. The decree awarded Wife $2895 per month in spousal maintenance for twelve years, the community residence (which had approximately $155,000 in equity), all personal property and the vehicle in her possession, the retirement account in her name, any debts that were incurred by her or in her name, and her attorneys’ fees. Husband received the car and personal property in his possession, the retirement account in his name, and any debts that were incurred by him or in his name. Five months later, Husband sought to set aside and vacate the default decree.
Continue Reading...NGS Voted Best Arizona Divorce & Family Law Firm In The Valley!
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC is proud to announce that it has voted the "Best of the Valley" by Arizona Foothills Magazine.
We thank all of our valued and loyal clients whose recognition of our tireless services on their behalf have made this possible. We look forward to contiuing to serve all indiviuals who are in need of Arizona Divorce & Family Law representation and will strive to lead the way in service and professionalism in all Arizona Divorce & Family Law related matters.
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist attorneys can be contacted for initial consultations at either their Scottsdale office (602-485-5800) or Tempe office (480-961-5900).
Parental Alienation
Parental alienation is unfortunately, a topic of considerable concern and frequency. However, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have not recognized it. Many courts have acknowledged it, however.
The goal of course is to protect a child from a physically and/or psychologically abusive parent. To deal with this, some courts have ordered some children into unsupervised timesharing and, in some cases, majority timesharing, with an abusing parent … to punish the so-called alienating (that is, protecting) parent. Unltimately, the question is whether Is it better to err in favor of protecting an allegedly alienated parent’s “rights” or in favor of protecting a child from abuse?
Check out this quote from a recent Capital Weekly article,
Parental Alienation is a perilous accusation that should never be recognized in courts or viewed as particularly compelling in cases deciding the custody of a child, especially when resolving profoundly difficult questions concerning the scary scenario of placing that child back into the home of a domestic violence abuser.
***Recent Ruling *** Unequal Division Not Limited To Short-Term Marriages
.jpg)
Yesterday, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, issued a published opinion, Flower v. Flower, wherein they dismissed the argument that an unequal division under Toth v. Toth is limited to marriages of extremely short duration.
Moreover, there is language in the opinion suggesting that length of marriage is only one factor in this analysis, and that courts need to look to overall contributions. Suffice to say, Flower might exponentially expand the scope of cases in which litigants seek an unequal division of property who would otherwise have accepted the fact that he or she had little real chance of persuading the trial court to deviate from an unequal division. We will wait to see whether the Arizona Supreme Court has something to say about it.
Sometimes "Flipping the Coin" Works Best
.jpg)
Kate Walsh, star of the television show Private Practice (and formerly Grey's Anatomy), and her ex-husband have adopted a long-time but not-often used approach to dividing the community property. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement provides:
"One-half of the community property furniture and artwork to be divided by alternating picks after the flip of a coin to determine who will pick first".
To read more about Kate Walsh and her divorce, check out the USA Today article "Kate Walsh, Ex To Divide Assets by Flipping a Coin".
Believe it or not, sometimes this is the most amicable way to divide up personal property, especially when it does not have much value. Both parties alternate in choosing until nothing is left. Kind of like picking dodgeball teams. For more information on community property, contact Arizona lawyers, Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.
Legislative Update: Divorce Waiting Period, Educational Programs
Arizona Senate Bill 1199 amending sections 25-329 and 25-351, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to domestic relations was introduced. It proposes changing the waiting period for a divorce to be finalized from the current 60 days to 180 days from the date of service of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or the acceptance of service. It also includes topics to be discussed during an Educational Program for parents and children going through a divorce.
You can look at this a number of ways: (1) it will produce a cottage industry of entities that provide these courses and they will thrive economically ; (2) it will give a chance for the State to make divorcing couples aware resources available to try to resolve marital difficulties and keep them together; and possibly (3) it would lenghthen the time and expense that it takes for a divorce action to percolate through the system.
Children with Special Needs
Children with special needs further complicate child custody and care issues during and after a divorce. As a result, your family law attorney needs to know what parents rights are under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and with the Section 504 (504) in the Americans With Disabilities Act when advising their clients and when crafting custody agreements.
The following article "Impact of Divorce Agreements on Special Education Decision-Making" highlights some issues and concerns to think about when one of your client's children are suspected of having or are diagnosed with a learning or emotional disability.
Recent Ruling - Undisclosed Line of Credit on Marital Residence
The Court of Appeals affirmed The Honorable Judge Hugh Hegyi's ruling in Frantz v. Frantz, 2009 WL 4981533 (Ariz.App. Div. 1), a case that dealt with an issue that is becoming more and more common in Arizona as a result of the State's heavy financial reliance of the real estate market. In Frantz, Husband appealed from a decree of dissolution arguing that the family court erred in its determination that a second lien secured by the marital residence was not a community obligation. At the dissolution hearing, Husband, Wife, and a real estate appraiser testified. Judge Hegyi stated:
“In finding that the community has $92,000 in equity in the [residence], the court does not deduct the value of the $84,000 second lien on that property. It finds that WIFE has established by clear and convincing evidence that the lien is not a community obligation. The money was received by HUSBAND alone. HUSBAND alone had the ability to explain what happened to the proceeds of the loan, and has failed to do so. After observing the parties' demeanor in testifying, the court finds HUSBAND expended these proceeds in a manner that was not intended to, and did not, benefit the community."
Husband filed a motion to alter or amend the decree requesting that the court value the residence at $8,000 - an amount reflecting the fair market value minus any and all of the liens and encumbrances obtained by the parties during the marriage. The court denied Husband's motion.
Continue Reading...Recent Ruling - Arizona Child Custody Appeal
Sometimes the simple things count the most. Remember, if you are in the process of appealing a child custody determination made by the Arizona Family Court, make sure you attach a copy of the transcript of the custody hearing for the Appellate Court's review.
In Bourgo v. Bourgo, 2009 WL 5062194 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)(Dec. 24, 2009), Mother forgot to do just that and as a result, her appeal challenging the denial of her petition to modify child custody was denied.
For all of your Arizona child custody related issues, make sure to contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, experienced Arizona family law attorneys.
Continue Reading...Child Support for an Adult Child
In Arizona, the family law court has the authority to award child support to an adult child. Usually child support ends when a child turns 18 years old, unless they are still in high school in which case support continues until the child graduates high school, but only until the child reaches the age of 19. However, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-320(E), the court can award child support to a child over the age of majority.
A.R.S. 25-320 states:
“E. Even if a child is over the age of majority when a petition is filed or at the time of the final decree, the court may order support to continue past the age of majority if all of the following are true:
- The court has considered the factors prescribed in subsection D of this section.
- The child is severely mentally or physically disabled as demonstrated by the fact that the child is unable to live independently and be self-supporting.
- The child's disability began before the child reached the age of majority.”
Thus, in order for the Court to award child support to an adult child, the child must have a disability which makes the child unable to live independently or be self-supporting. Additionally, the disability must have began while the child was still a minor.
Continue Reading...IRAs, Community Property Law, Transmutation, Commingling
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently rendered a decision regarding Arizona community property law in an Arizona divorce case. A summary follows.
In Quinlan v. Quinlan, Not Reported in P.3d, 2009 WL 3644806 (Ariz.App. Div. 1), the wife appealed from a ruling from the Arizona divorce court arguing that the family court erred in determining that Husband's IRA accounts were his sole and separate property, among other things. In this case, husband and wife were married in October 1989; wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in October 2006, and the decree of dissolution was entered in July 2008.
Continue Reading...Arizona "No Fault" Divorce
Many people often ask what an Arizona "No Fault" Divorce really means. In simple terms, it means that in Arizona any husand or wife, despite what the other spouse may want, can get divorced without the other agreeing that the marriage should be disolved.
The Arizona divorce statute requires that there must be an "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage for the court to be able grant a divorce, or as it is technically called, a dissolution of marriage.
If either a husband or wife by petition under oath state that the marriage is irretrievably broken or if one of them so states and the other does not deny it, the court will make a finding as to whether or not the marriage is irretrievably broken. If either the husband or wife denies under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court will conduct a hearing to consider whether reconciliation is possible and will also (1) make a finding as to whether or not the marriage is irretrievably broken, and (2) stay the divorce proceeding for not more than sixty days. At the request of either party or on its own motion, the court may also send the husband and wife a conciliation conference.
There are other possible strategic reasons why a husband or wife may want to ask for a concilliation conference other than to stay the court's determination as to whether the marriage can be reconcilled. For further information on this and other issues relating to Arizona divorce cases, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.
Continue Reading...Arizona Child Support Update
The Arizona legislature is in the process of reviewing the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. This review process occurs approximately every 4 years in order to insure that the Arizona Child Support Guidelines are in sync with the current economic situation. The review process is required by federal law, which requires states to have child support lawsthat are: (a) applicable state wide; (b) take into consideration the non-custodial parents earnings and income; (c) are based on specific numeric and descriptive criteria; (d) results in a computation of the child support obligation; and (e) are reviewed and if necessary, revised, at least once every four years.
It is appears that there will be changes to the maximum combined gross income for child support and there will be changes to definitions to gross income when calculating Arizona child support awards. For example, one proposal is to indicate that cash value may be assigned to in-kind or other non-cash benefits for recurring contributions from any sources that reduce living expenses as opposed to making that a "shall" provision. A revised chart is being proposed for use in terms of defining adjustments for support of other children. These would be children for which the parent is legally obligated to support including children being supported by court order. There will also be provisions as proposed in the new guidelines to discuss situations when a parent's income as the obligor is over $12,000 monthly. Recognition of possible changes to Arizona Child Support Guidelines is important.
As more information becomes available, we will continue to let you know how these changes could affect you. In the meantime, if you need any assistance with Arizona child support issues, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.
Uncontested Divorces in Arizona
In Arizona there are many people who have never been divorced before. Often times, one married person decides that they would no longer like to be married and would like to know more about "uncontested divorces". They don't exactly know what an "uncontested divorce" is but have heard that it is an easier and relatively cheaper process. Well, that is true. However, most people believe that an Arizona uncontested divorce can only be accomplished when the other spouse's whereabouts are unknown. That is not the case. When both husband and wife have come to terms that they will be divorcing and have come to an agreement regarding the terms, i.e., division of community property, assumption of community debt, spousal maintenance (also called alimony or spousal support), and if children are involved, child custody and child support, an uncontested divorce can be used to simplify the process and get the divorce done quicker.
What actually is an "uncontested divorce" in Arizona? Well, it is a divorce automatically granted by a court when the spouse who is served with a summons and complaint for divorce fails to file a formal response with the court. Many divorces proceed this way when the spouses have worked everything out and there's no reason for both to go to court -- and pay the court costs.
For more information regarding uncontested divorces, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC and they will be glad to answer any questions you may have, or assist you with the process.
Arizona Child Custody Statutes - Best Interests of the Child
When there are children involved in divorce cases in Arizona (or paternity cases), many questions arise as to how child custody is resolved. Arizona Statutes deal with child custody issues in Arizona divorce and paternity cases and are a great first place to start.
Some definitions need to be known and understood. For instance, with respect to Arizona child custody, "Joint legal custody" means the condition under which both parents share legal custody. In this situation, "both parents share legal custody and neither parent's rights are superior, except with respect to specified decisions set forth by the court or the parents in a final judgment or order." Normally, the major decisions regarding a child involve medical, education and religion. Most other decisions made by a parent such as daily activies of the child, what the children eat and wear, etc. are made by the parent who has physical custody of the child at the time the decision needs to be made.
That brings us to "Joint physical custody", which is defined as "the condition under which the physical residence of the child is shared by the parents in a manner that assures that the child has substantially equal time and contact with both parents." What "substantially equally time and contact with both parents" is, of course, where many problems may arise as both parents may have very different views on this subject.
In an Arizona divorce or paternity case, if mother and father are unable to reach an agreement as to what custody arrangements should be put in place for their child, Arizona statute authorizes the court to award when deciding child custody that custody be either "sole" or "joint". Importantly, there is no presumption in favor of one custody arrangement over the other. And, "the court in determing custody shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex". So, the sex of the parent when determing child custody in Arizona should not be a factor in the court's decision.
Many questions often arise about "what is in the child's best interests" in Arizona custody cases. The divorce or paternity case judge considers the following: 1. the wishes of the child's parents; 2. the wishes of the child; 3. the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the parents, the child's siblings and any others who may significantly affect the child's best interests; 4. the child's adjustment to home, school and community; 5. the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; 6. which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other parent; 7. whether one parent, both parents or neither parent has provided primary care of the child; 8. the nature and extent of coercion or duress used by a parent in obtaining an agreement regarding custody; and 9. whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse.
Of course, this is only the basics. When dealing with Arizona child custody disputes each case is different because no two situations are exactly the same. Facts always differ. If you have any questions regarding Arizona child custody in the context of an Arizona divorce or paternity case, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.
Tax Issues And Arizona Divorce
When people divorce in Arizona, there are many complex tax questions that arise. While it is impossible to address all of them without knowing the specific facts in each case, simple answers to some general questions are addressed here. First, because these issues are usually complicated, you should always talk these matters over with your divorce attorneys and CPA to get the answer for your specific situation.
Continue Reading...
Arizona Divorce, Arizona Child Custody and Arizona Child Support -- Temporary Orders Hearing
Temporary Orders in Arizona Family Court
What kind of temporary orders you can get in Arizona family court, and how.
Typically Arizona divorce and custody cases take months to make it to court. But if you're getting divorced and need a quick decision from a judge about who gets the kids, the car, the money in the bank accounts, or the house -- or if you need money for support right away -- obviously you can't wait that long.
You don't have to. When couples separate, important issues are often resolved in a short evidentiary hearing before a judge, instead of requiring a full-scale trial.
Even though these hearings are shorter than trials, their brevity means that you must be prepared and know exactly what you want. You may have only a few minutes to ask for it.
What Temporary Orders Are For
Let's say a husband moves out, and the wife who's left behind needs money to feed and shelter the children. Realizing that her children would starve long before a full trial could be held, she is desperate for help. She can go to court to request a temporary order from an Arizona family court judge, even though a formal divorce action has not yet been set for trial and discovery may not have been completed, or for that matter, even started. Her request will be put on a fast track, and an evidentiary hearing will be scheduled within weeks in most cases.
Spouses can also ask the Arizona family court to temporarily:
- restrain a spouse from coming near or contacting the other (or, if he or she hasn't already done so, to move out of the family home)
- establish child custody and visiting arrangements
- provide for spousal support (alimony) and/or child support payments
- order either spouse not to sell valuable assets, and/or
- give possession of the family home or car to one of the spouses.
These temporary orders are usually valid until the court holds another hearing or until the spouses arrive at their own settlement through negotiation or mediation.
When to Ask for a Temporary Order
When someone moves out of the house, one of you should go to court right away to quickly resolve any critical issues, such as spousal support. And, if the children will be staying with you, you should immediately file for custody and child support.
This accomplishes two things. First, you will be awarded the proper amount of child support and the court will acknowledge that you live with the children -- often granting physical custody right off the bat. Second, your spouse cannot successfully claim that the children were kidnapped. This may sound extreme and unlike your future ex-spouse, but some people behave uncharacteristically when under duress and feeling threatened. And, if your future ex-spouse raises such a claim, the police or judge are usually obligated to hear her or him out. However, when you arrive with proof that you filed for custody and child support, the court will most likely dismiss a kidnapping claim.
How to Ask for a Temporary Order
To get a court order, you must prepare and file some paperwork. Here's what you'll probably need
- A request for the court order you want.
- A supporting affidavit. This is a written statement, under penalty of perjury, setting out facts that legally justify the issuance of the temporary order -- for example, the need for money to support your children. You can also submit declarations of other people who have first-hand knowledge of the facts.
- A proposed temporary order granting you the relief requested. This order will be signed by the family court judge if he or she grants the relief you request.
- A proof of service. This is a document that proves to the court that the papers have been properly delivered to your spouse.
What to Expect at the Hearing
Your next step is to attend the court hearing where the jArizona family court udge will consider your request. In emergencies, the hearing can be held within a few days.The judge will:
- review the details of the requests and the underlying facts
- possibly ask you some questions
- ask your spouse, if present, for his or her side of the story, and
- in child support cases, refer to state guidelines on recommended support, given factors such as each spouse's income and who has primary custody of the kids.
At its conclusion, the Arizona family court judge will likely make a ruling, usually either issuing the temporary order you requested or modifying it somewhat. Orders such as these stay in effect only until the divorce is finally settled, either through a trial or when you and your spouse reach an agreement.
Arizona Divorce Law Primer
Arizona Divorce -- No Fault Jurisdiction. According to Arizona divorce laws, you do not need to prove grounds in order to receive a divorce. The Arizona court will grant a petition for divorce on the grounds that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This is referred to as an Arizona no-fault divorce. Additionally, one of the spouses must have been a resident in the state of Arizona for 90 days prior to the filing of the petition for divorce in AZ.
Alimony & Community Property in Arizona. Arizona is known as a community property state, which can be defined as any asset acquired or income earned by a married person while living with his or her spouse. According to Arizona divorce laws this means that the marital property must be divided fairly or equitably and without regard to marital fault. Separate property, or property owned prior to the marriage will be retained by the owning spouse. Spousal maintenance, also known as spousal support or alimony, can be awarded to either the husband or wife. Such factors as the length of the marriage, the parties’ prior living standard, etc. are considered in determining the amount and duration that should be paid and which is considered just. Marital fault may not be taken into account in this decision.
Arizona Child Support, Child Visitation and Child Custody. The main focus in determining child custody, according to Arizona divorce law, is the best interest of the children. However, under AZ divorce laws, the parents may submit a parenting plan with the request for joint custody. Visitation rights within reason are typically awarded to the non custodial parent. Child support (a percentage of the non-custodial parents’ income paid to assist with the support of his children) is determined by the Income Shares model, based on the gross income of both parents as set forth by divorce law in Arizona. Expect to pay child support until the age of 18 or until the child is a high school graduate.
To find out more contact www.ngslaw.com.
Economic Downturn Favorable To "Monied Spouses"
While some couples are putting off divorce because they can’t afford it, the situation is different for moneyed clients. Since their assets are worth less, a lot of monied spouses believe the time is ripe to divorce because they will have to give less to the other spouse. This may be especially true where the more financially empowered spouse wants to keep the marital residence and their 401(k) and other retirement plans.
Facebook and Divorces
The following article, appearing in Time Magazine recently, relates to postings on Facebook and their relation with divorce and family law matters.
"Not long after Patrick told his wife Tammie he wanted a divorce, she posted an angry, hurt note on "the wall," or public-comments section, of his Facebook page. Embarrassed that his colleagues, clients, church friends and family could see evidence of his marital woes, he deleted it and blocked his wife from seeing his page. A couple of days later, the IT worker in Florida--who asked that his last name not be used in this story — found alarmed messages from two Facebook friends in his inbox. Tammie had used a mutual friend's account to view Patrick's wall and e-mailed several women he had had exchanges with. He says her e-mails were borderline defamatory. She says they merely noted that he was married with children, a fact he had left off his Facebook profile. Either way: Ouch."
Continue Reading...Saudi Arabia grants text-message divorce
A Jeddah court finds a Saudi Arabian man's act of divorcing his wife via text-message to be in compliance with the country's law.
The unnamed Saudi citizen, who was in Iraq when he sent the text, immediately called two men who had witnessed his marriage to inform them of his decision.
The court recognized the Saudi man's decision after making sure that the two witnesses had been duly informed, The Daily Telegraph reported.
The strict law observed in Saudi Arabia allows a man to divorce his wife by simply saying "I divorce you" three times.
Women on the other hand are permitted to take their case to court but their divorce is not guaranteed.
Nurse Dissapears After Child Support Win
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Nonnie Dotson, a nurse in the U.S. Air Force, was decompressing from a hard-fought child support battle when she disappeared hundreds of miles from her home base.
Dotson, 33, was staying with her brother at his home outside Denver, Colorado, when she vanished on November 19, 2006. She was supposed to meet friends at the mall for a smoothie.
She never showed.
Judge Sides with Kelly Rutherford in Custody Issue
Star Jones Files For Divorce
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...
The Art & Science of Custody Evaluations
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.
Ex-Wife of Former Beatle Explains Dousing of Opposing Counsel
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...
Wife of Entertainment Mogul Simmons Files for Divorce
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...
Order Modifying Child Support Reversed -- Err In Imputing Non-Taxable Income
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...
Voicemail is Discoverable
Messages left on voicemail can be introduced as evidence.
Continue Reading...
Waiver in Prenup Doesn't Bar Request for Attorneys' Fees
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.
Mother's Veracity Irrelevant In Paternity Case -- Estoppel
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.
Enraged Doctor Burns Residence - The Real War of The Roses
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.
Ninth Circuit Rules On Non-Custodial Parent's Rights
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).
Colorado Allows 12-Year-Old Girls To Enter Into Common-Law Marriages
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...Colorado Allows 12-Year-Old Girls To Enter Into Common-Law Marriages
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...Shared Intent Affects Finding of Habitual Residence
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...Interspousal Agreements -- Patent Application -- Ownership
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.
Taxation - Old Tax Code Provision Controls Deductibility
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...Child Abduction - Hague Convention - Presumption of Joint Custody
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...Interesting Article For Military Personnel
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.
For Arizona military divorce issues, contact NRG.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals -- Stay Away From Children Order Affirmed
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.
*** NINTH CIRCUIT OPINION*** -- Innocent Spouse Relief -- Appeal -- Other Spouse's Standing
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...Spousal Maintenance Termination Revisited
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.
Arizona Courts Will Employ New Rules In Family Law Cases
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...How To Be An A+ Parent
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...U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals - Hague (Child Custody) Decision
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.
Non-Custodial Parent Has Protected Liberty Interest In Child
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.
High Court Nixes Restraining-Order Suits
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.
Arizona Child Support Collections Rank Poorly
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.
Maricopa County Clerk's Filing Fees Increase
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.
Answers For Military Personnel Going Through Divorce
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.
The Continuing Saga On Lindsay Lohan's Parent's Divorce
It is apparent that this story won't go away. Here, is more on the juicy allegation-ridden divorce of the moment. Click here.
UCCJEA - Mother and Child's Overseas Move Did Not Divest Court of Jurisdiction
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...New Rules for European Family Law
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...Who Gets to Claim a Child as a Dependent?
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...What Qualifies as Child Support?
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
New Kansas Family Law Blog
Check out Grant D. Griffiths' new divorce law blog on everything to do with Kansas law. It is at http://gdgrifflaw.typepad.com.
New Social Security Site for Women
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?
Haven't Gotten Around to Changing Those Beneficiary Designations? A Word of Caution
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...Employee Who Kept Spouse Enrolled in Health Plan Five Years After Divorce Found Liable for Fraud
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...Pending Bankruptcy Legislation Could Impact Support Payments
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...A New Era of Family Law - "50/50 Custody"
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...Visitation Jurisdiction
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.
Preparation of Pendente Lite Applications
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...Dr. Joyce Brothers Advice Re: Children and Divorce
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.
Forbes Article -- Top Financial Divorce Mistakes
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.
UCCJEA Opinion From Texas
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.
Growth of Assets During Marriage Does Not Void Prenuptial Agreement
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.
Mother May Have Child Baptized Without Father's Consent
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.
Georgia House Bill 221 Balances Child Support
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.
Online Parenting Course -- Children in the Middle
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.
Florida Divorce Raises Issues of Authority, Costs
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...Nebraska Attempts To Collect Child Support From Dead Man
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.
When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy
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.
Lesbian Who Split With Partner Ordered To Pay Child Support
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.
Revisions to Arizona Child Support Guidelines
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.
More Changes To Arizona Child Support Guidelines
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...Changes To Arizona Child Support Guidelines
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.
Privacy On Assets In Divorce Case Challenged In Court
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...Rush Limbaugh Divorce Finalized
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...Alimony Payments Have Tax Implications
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
Spyware Evidence Not Permitted In Divorce Case
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...Tips from the SMILE (Start Making It Livable For Everyone) Program
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.
Child Never in State -- Divorce Action -- UCCJEA
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.
Qualified Immunity Protects Attorney
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 that the lawyer had "an ulterior motive separate and apart from the good faith representation of the client's interests."
Changes to Federal Tax Law And Its Effect Upon Child-Related Tax Benefits
Recent changes to federal tax law create a "Uniform Definition of Child" that is effective beginning in tax year 2005. The new law creates a uniform definition of qualifying child for the tax benefits that relate to children. Under the new law, a qualifying child must meet only three tests, relationship, residence, and age:
1. Relationship: The child must be the taxpayer's son, daughter, stepchild, sibling, stepsibling, or a descendant of such individuals. Foster children placed with the taxpayer by authorized placement agencies would satisfy the relationship test. If the child is the taxpayer's sibling or stepsibling or a descendant of any such individual, the taxpayer must care for the child as if the child were his or her own child.
2. Residence: The child must live with the taxpayer in the same principal place of abode in the United States for over half the year. Military personnel on extended active duty outside the United States would be considered to be residing in the United States. As under current law, the taxpayer and child are considered to live together even if one or both are temporarily absent due to special circumstances such as illness, education, business, vacation, or military service.
3. Age: The child must be under the age of 19, a full-time student if over age 18 and under age 24, or totally and permanently disabled. However, as under current law, qualifying children (who are not disabled) must be under age 13 for purposes of the child and dependent care tax credit and under 17 (whether or not disabled) to qualify for the child tax credit.
A tie-breaker rule similar to the current EITC tie-breaker applies if more than one qualifying taxpayer claims a benefit for the same child.
This new rule affects the following tax benefits.
* The dependency exemption.
* The child tax credit.
* The earned income credit.
* The dependent care credit.
* Head of household filing status.
Employers May Now Charge for QDRO Approval
In a little noticed change, the US Department of Labor issued a "field assistance bulletin" in May, 2003, that permits employers and administrators of ERISA-regulated defined contribution retirement plans (such as 401(k) plans) to charge QDRO processing expenses. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that one large plan administrator (Fidelity Investments) now charges for QDROs for 40 of its 200 plans for which Fidelity processes QDRO documents. The decision to charge is made by each individual employer.
Continue Reading...As Valentine's Day Approaches, Marriage and Financial Compatibility Deserves Attention
As Valentine's Day approaches, potential marriage proposals loom close by. Click here, for an article discussing the financial compatibility among potential spouses.
In Re Ashley D. - California Court Deals With UCCJEA Issue
In In re Ashley D., 2005 WL 45052 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)(01/11/05), Mother appealed from the juvenile court's order which terminated legal guardianship for her daughter, Ashley D. (born in 1991), as well as any remaining jurisdiction over Ashley's case. Ashley also separately appealled the order. On appeal, Mother and Ashley did not contest the order terminating guardianship, they only challenged the termination of California jurisdiction, with deference to pending juvenile dependency proceedings in Oregon.
In doing so, Mother and Ashley asserted that the juvenile court erred in terminating California jurisdiction over the dependency proceedings arguing that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam.Code, § 3400, et.seq.), Oregon erred in adjudicating a petition for juvenile dependency concerning Ashley because California already had jurisdiction. Mother and Ashley further argued that the California juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating California's jurisdiction and deferring the matter to Oregon after granting the Oregon Department of Human Services's (ODHS) Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition terminating legal guardianship and California jurisdiction.
The California Court of Appeals foundthat there was no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment holding that the record sufficiently supports a reasonable finding that allowing Ashley's juvenile dependency matter to continue in Oregon, where she had been living for at least four years and had been the subject of juvenile dependency proceedings there for almost three years, was appropriate and in Ashley's best interest.
Lesbian Lifestyle and Non-Attendance at Church Leads To Court's Transfer of Custody To Father In Mississippi
The Mississippi Court of Appeals, in Davidson v. Coit, Miss. Ct. App., No. 2002-CA-01570, 2/1/05, ruled that a custodial mother's exposure of her daughters to her lesbian lifestyle and her failure to take them to church were properly considered by a trial court in changing custody to their father.
While acknowledging that the divorce court was aware of the mother's sexual preference when it originally awarded her custody (and that the fact that she was a lesbian would not support modification), the court found that the evidence buttressed the father's contention that her post-divorce conduct was detrimental to the children. It also found that in awarding custody to the father the trial court did not err in taking into account the fact that the mother did not take the children to church When the parties divorced in 1997, they were granted joint custody of their two daughters, with the mother having primary physical custody. In 2001, the father filed for modification, asserting that the children (then ages 7 and 9) had been exposed to the mother's lesbian lifestyle and that her live-in girlfriends and the maternal grandmother were raising them.
Continue Reading...Arkansas Case Deals With UCCJEA Issues
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, in Weesner v. Johnson, Ark. Ct. App., No. 04-784, 1/19/05) ruled 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.
Continue Reading...International Family Law
By Jeremy D. Morley
International marriages and personal relationships place special demands on family lawyers whose clients require dependable advice about complex international family law issues. This has led to an increasing role for international family law counsel.
Today, it would hardly be unusual for an American man and a French woman living in New York to marry in Bermuda, move from New York to Singapore on business, own real estate in Canada and a business in England, and have children in school in Switzerland. If they separated and one spouse unilaterally returned with the children to live in New York, both parties might well require legal advice regarding many matters, each of which might have a significant international component, concerning divorce, custody, equitable distribution, child support, spousal support and child abduction.
Continue Reading...DR Rules Committee to Submit Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure to AJC in March 2005
The Committee on the Rules of Procedure in Domestic Relations Cases is nearing completion of the first draft of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure (ARFLP) and plans to submit a report of its findings and recommendations and the rules for approval to the Committee on Superior Courts (COSC) in February, 2005 and the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) in March, 2005. If the Rules are approved by AJC, the Committee will submit the Rules for approval during the Justices' Rules Agenda in June, 2005 and circulate them for public comment until August, 2005. The DR Rules Committee is hopeful to have the ARFLP effective on January 1, 2006.
Continue Reading...Buy-Out Of Community Property Rights In Qualified Plan Is Tax-Free Transfer
For tax-qualified retirement plans, the rules regarding tax-free transfers of pension benefits in connection with divorce are well settled. However, a fair amount of uncertainty remains regarding the taxation of transfers of retirement benefits accumulated during a marriage where the pension plan is a supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) or other nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement.
Continue Reading...Division of Charitable Remainder Unitrust Pursuant To Property Settlement Agreement Is Entitled To Nonrecognition
The division of a charitable remainder unitrust pursuant to a divorced
couple's property settlement agreement is entitled to nonrecognition, the IRS has announced in a recent private letter ruling (PLR 200502037 ; IRS, 9/30/04, released 1/14/05).
Prenuptial Agreements
It may not be the most romantic part of your blooming relationship, but a prenuptial agreement can protect your financial future if that bloom fades. Whether you're Donald and Ivana or John and Jane, here's what you need to know before walking down the aisle.
By Brad Marcoux
Most people take marriage seriously, and hold high hopes for their new relationships. Little wonder then that prenuptial agreements aren't high on any betrothed's desirability list. After all, thinking about a prenuptial agreement is often feared akin to planning the end of a relationship before it's even begun. But in these times of soaring divorce rates and uncertain financial stability, it only makes sense that people should be concerned with such practicalities, dreary though they may be. While deciding between a Caribbean or a Mediterranean honeymoon is undoubtedly more pleasurable, if there's any uncertainty about your forthcoming marriage, financial or otherwise, then you should consider creating a prenuptial agreement.
Simply put, a prenuptial (also known as an antenuptial) agreement is a legal agreement signed by you and your future spouse. Normally, they deal with straightforward financial and legal issues in the event of a divorce or a death -- what will be done with the house, any stocks, bonds, or other such marital assets. They might also include some extras like custody arrangements, spousal support, or even what happens to the family pet. According to Lester Wallman, a partner in the Manhattan law firm of Wallman, Greenberg, Gasman and McKnight, and author of Cupid, Couples & Contracts: A Guide to Living Together, Prenuptial Agreements, and Divorce (MasterMedia, $12.95), an agreement can be specifically tailored to the couple's needs and wants. Finances are generally the main focus, but even the pettiest details can be included. "One client insisted the toilet seat be put down," says Wallman. This example, while extreme, illustrates a point: anything and everything under the sun can go into a "prenup." So if you feel the need to restrict your intended's bathroom privileges, or outline a schedule for walking the dog, go ahead and have it included. Just be aware that such "extras" can be legally murky and expensive, and so should generally be considered as more psychologically reassuring than legally binding.
Although most agreements are relatively straightforward, this doesn't mean that they are simple. The emotional cost alone could be prohibitive: 10% of people who begin to pursue a prenuptial arrangement decide against the marriage because of the strain it causes. Arguing that such relationships wouldn't have lasted anyway doesn't make the concept any less daunting, either. "Prenuptial agreements are very stressful," warns Curtis Bennett Ross, a Chicago CPA and attorney in private practice. "But they are also very legitimate, especially if one of the pair has been through divorce in the past." It may be seem a foolish idea to put your relationship at risk over finances, but consider this: if the two of you are unable to sit down and talk rationally about your needs and fears when your relationship is good, then how bad might it be if things ever turn sour? To read more, click here.
Virginia Bill Proposes Drastic Changes To Custody In Divorce Actions
There may soon be a change in visitation rights when Virginia couples file for divorce.
A bill in play at the General Assembly would take away a judge's power to establish a parent's visitation schedule. Some Virginia parents believe the current system is unfair. Parents spoke out Wednesday, saying they want a new law to establish fair visitation guidelines for parents going through divorce. Proponents of the bill say it would also drastically reduce attorney's fees. The bill would establish guidelines for judges during divorce proceedings.
Continue Reading...US Navy Policy - Single Care Plans
Service members with children, who are minors, are required to have a family care plan. A family care plan designates who will take care of a service members' children while the service member is deployed. However, it is very important that service members with children know that a family care plan has no legal authority outside of the military, and this can be a big problem if you deploy and leave your child with anyone other than the child's other biological parent. If you and the other biological parent are fighting over custody of the child, a family care plan alone will not prevent the other parent from taking the child while you are deployed.
Continue Reading...Statute of Limitations Inapplicable to Administrative Remedies
DES v. Hayden, 427 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, ___ Ariz. ___, ___P.2d ___ (Ct. App., Div. 1, 06/08/04).
If unpaid child support judgments have not been reduced to a written judgment within 3 years of the emancipation of the child in question, the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. Section 25-503(I) may prohibit the collection of a judgment through the courts, but the State can still pursue statutory administrative remedies to collect the debt until the debt is paid.
Click here to read the full opinion.
Post-Decree Bankruptcy Basis To Set Aside Decree
This case has great implications to those spouses out their who think that they can beat the divorce court by taking all of the debt in a divorce action and then run over to the bankruptcy court and have it discharged.
In Birt v. Birt, the Husband's filing of a Chapter 7 Bankrutpcy approximately two months after the entry of the parties Decree of Dissolution resulting in Wife being obligated to pay all community debt and remaining liable for property equalization payments to Husband, created "such a substantial injustice that it overrides the committment to finality of judgments and on the factsof this case call for relief under Rule 60(c)(6).".
The trial court on remand, was directed to determine: (1) Whether to affirm an award of attorney's fees and clarify whether it is in the nature of nondischargeable maintenance or support rather than part of a property division; (2) Whether the bankruptcy discharge resulting in the doubling of Wife's ultimate liability on community debts requires an award of spousal maintenance to Wife; (3) Whether the discharged creditors have reached any agreements with Wife to limit the Wife's obligation on the debts; (4) Whether to reallocate property, debts or equalization payments; and (5) Whether the original allocations were in the nature of spousal maintenance or child support rather than a simple division of property and debt.
Invalid Mexican Marriage Recognized in Arizona
A marriage that is invalid under the law where the ceremony occurred may nevertheless be recognized as valid in Arizona if it would have been valid had the ceremony been performed there, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided in Donlann v. Macgurn, Ariz. Ct. App., No. 1 CA-CV 01-0095, 9/12/02).
The parties participated in a marriage ceremony in 1990 during a vacation in Puerto Vallerta, Jalisco, Mexico. They obtained the necessary blood tests and marriage certificate in Mexico. Their marriage certificate was signed by a civil registry official; however, the marriage ceremony was performed by a woman who was not an authorized member of the civil registry office.
The couple returned to Arizona and resided together after the wedding. When the wife petitioned for divorce in 1997, the husband claimed that their marriage was invalid under Jalisco law because the wedding was not performed by a civil registry official. The trial court agreed and the wife appealed.
Continue Reading...Contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC
Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Office
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC
Paradise Valley Corporate Center
4835 East Cactus Road, Suite 220
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Telephone: 602.485.5800
Facsimile: 602.485.0600
Website: www.ngslaw.com
Email: info@ngslaw.com
Chandler/Tempe Office
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC
One Agave Center
8950 South 52nd Street, Suite 212
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Telephone: 480.691.5900
Facsimile: 480.691.7013
Website: www.ngslaw.com
Email: info@ngslaw.com
About Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC
Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC is an Arizona divorce and family law firm. Our hard-earned and highly respected reputation is built on years of practicing at the highest level of skill, compassion, integrity and versatility. Our partners and associate attorneys represent clients in diverse matters from divorce and child custody disputes to complex business litigation in the context of a divorce case to mediation or litigation and all associated facets of law.
With an intensely guarded reputation of excellence and track record of success Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC has earned the respect and admiration of colleagues and opposing counsel alike. This prestige and standing in the legal community has positioned our firm to attract the brightest legal talent to best server our client's needs.
OUR PHILOSOPHY
We believe our clients are best served by a progressive "team representation" approach that emphasizes creative use of intellectual, persuasive and technical acumen. Depth and diversity in our attorney talent allow us to match your needs with the most skilled individual representation while also providing the benefits of the entire teams collective capabilities.
To ensure the most successful resolution for each client, Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC collaborates closely with other professionals - including family therapists, counselors, corporate and financial advisors and clergy. This inclusive extension of our comprehensive team approach supports unique strategies that better meet each client's unique needs.
OUR COMMITTMENT
Your cause is our commitment. Every Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist LLP attorney is dedicated to tireless advocacy, reasoned decision-making and effective implementation of superior strategy and sophisticated techniques.
Every effort is made to achieve a successful resolution outside the courtroom. However, our attorneys will confidently step before the Bench to challenge opposing counsel - and judges - when doing so is in your best interest. In every circumstance we will passionately champion your rights.
Part of our role is to cut through the jargon, answer questions and clarify complex issues. We provide thoughtful counsel that allows you to make decisions with confidence while actively participating in the resolution of your case. We devote maximum effort to achieve maximum results while always striving to deliver in an optimum, timely, cost-efficient and practical manner.
OUR VALUES
We realize our clients have come to us to assist them in resolving delicate matters. That's why every case - every issue - is addressed with understanding and sensitivity.
We never forget that our clients are people who deserve dignity, respect and compassion.
We're mindful that those on the opposite side of the negotiating table - or the courtroom - may often be friends or family whom you never imagined you'd be speaking to through an attorney.
We respect the bonds of family and understand that disputes between siblings, parents and children, in-laws or other relatives require firm resolve tempered by delicate diplomacy if there is to be hope of maintaining or repairing familial harmony.
We understand that clients with children can never lose sight of the need to maintain their ability to collaborate with the other parent - now and throughout their lives.
We believe a strategic understanding of the law leads to new possibilities and innovative ways of helping clients minimize risk while maximizing progress toward their goals.
We believe each and every client has the justified expectation of our fullest commitment and resolve focused on achieving the broadest positive outcome on their behalf.
Please visit our website to find out more.
