Posts Tagged ‘family law’

Spanking and Discipline During and After an Arizona Divorce

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Spanking and Discipline During and After an Arizona Divorce

While there is no law against spanking children as part of an overall discipline system, and many mental health professional agree that an occasional and properly used spanking may be an effective tool in raising children, parents going through a divorce or who have gone through a divorce should be very cautious about spanking their children.

During marriage, when both parents are working together as a team and support one another, spanking may be appropriate.  However, too often a spanking during a pending divorce or after a divorce may be blown out of proportion and designated by the other parent as child abuse or abusive behavior.  An unsporting parent can use a spanking to turn children away from the spanking parent as a form of parental alienation, or use the incident to commence a long and drawn out court battle.

Additionally, a spanked child that is in a loving home with two loving parents may receive a completely different message than would a child who is filled with self-doubts and confusion caused by the loss of his or her family and the structure that he or she was accustomed to prior to the divorce.  Children struggling with emotional setbacks may not respond the same to a spanking.

Furthermore, even if eventually proven to not have been abusive, the financial costs of defending oneself against a potential criminal child abuse case and a family law custody battle simply make it not worth the risk to spank a child or use any other form of physical punishment.

There are many books available, and counselors with whom one may speak with regarding alternate forms of discipline and punishment that may be more appropriate.

While it is important to maintain discipline during and after a divorce, one should be cautioned to consider the possible consequences before choosing to spank a child.


Please feel free to contact our firm for a free telephonic consultation.   www.mcguiregardner.com

Is Facebook Causing Divorces?

Friday, May 7th, 2010

Is Facebook Causing Divorces?

An international article was recently published online (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tech/Social-Media/Facebook-fuelling-divorce/articleshow/5885855.cms) discussing the causal effect of increased use of Facebook and other networking websites in divorces.  The article stated that as many as 20% of British Divorces made mention of Facebook as a part of the cause.

In Arizona, it will be much more difficult to assess the impact of social networks, as Arizona is a no-fault divorce state so specific allegations of infidelity are not required in court paperwork.

While the impact of Facebook on divorces comes in many forms, the most typical is the rekindling of long lost love or the locating of a first love from childhood days and the associated re-kindling of that romance.

Because of the reduced barriers when on-line, flirting that would never occur in person often does occur over the internet and people who may not have otherwise allowed themselves to become emotionally and romantically unfaithful to a current spouse may find that is exactly what has happened.

To contact an Arizona divorce lawyer, please check out our website at www.yourarizondivorcelawyer.com.

CAN I DISCHARGE DEBTS TO A FORMER SPOUSE IN BANKRUPTCY?

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

CAN I DISCHARGE DEBTS TO A FORMER SPOUSE IN BANKRUPTCY?

Certain debts to a spouse or former spouse may be discharged in a bankruptcy.  However, the rules are quite complicated and you should carefully discuss the debts with a knowledgeable attorney.

Certain debts to a spouse or former spouse cannot be discharged in bankruptcy under the recent bankruptcy changes.  These include debts closely related to the support or maintenance of a spouse or children, including child support and spousal maintenance.

Other debts, usually debts to even out or equalize a property division in a divorce, may be dischargeable but only in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

Occasionally these distinctions can be significantly blurred.  If payments to a former spouse are not clearly designated as either maintenance or equalization of property, the fight avoided in the divorce case may re-erupt in a non-dischargeability action in the subsequently filed bankruptcy case.

To speak with an attorney about your divorce or bankruptcy questions, please contact McGuire Gardner today.

For more information, or to contact an Arizona divorce lawyer, please check out our website at www.yourarizondivorcelawyer.com.

Division of Marital Property/Debts- Don’t Get a Cookie-Cutter Outcome

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Arizona law requires the “equitable” division of marital property and marital debts during a divorce. Generally this is intended to be an “equal” division, though there are some cases in which an equal division may not be a fair (or equitable) division.

Specifically, Arizona statute provides that the Court may consider “excessive or abnormal expenditures and the destruction, concealment, or fraudulent disposition of property.” A.R.S. § 25-318(C). Additionally, the Courts may properly consider “other factors that bear on the equities of a case.” Inboden.

For example, the Courts may consider the “length of the marriage; the contributions of each spouse to the community, financial or otherwise; the source of funds used to acquire the property to be divided; the allocation of debt; as well as any other factor that may affect the outcome.” Inboden.

Courts are trained to equally divide property in each case, as this is what occurs most frequently. Accordingly, if you believe that it would be fair that you receive a larger share of the marital property to make the division a fair division, you will need experienced legal counsel to present your case and convince the Court that your case is unusual and deserving of a different outcome than the cookie-cutter divorce that the Courts are accustomed to.

Please feel free to contact McGuire Gardner today to speak with an experienced family law attorney about your unique case.

How One Judge Defines Legal Custody:

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Legal custody, usually either joint legal custody or sole legal custody, is the decision legal right/responsibility for decision making regarding the children.  It is not the amount of time each parent spends with the children.

 

The concept of what is included in legal decision making may vary from Judge to Judge, but generally encompasses major decisions in the areas of education, religion, and medical treatment of the children.

 

One Judge, a former family law attorney herself, recently put out a short list of the major decisions that would require both parent’s decision in a joint legal custody case.  The Judge first clarifies that day to day decisions are to be made by the parent with whom the child is staying at a given time (for example, what type of cereal to have for breakfast or what cartoon characters to have on band-aids).  These small day to day decisions do not require an agreement between both parents.  However, the following decisions should be discussed by the parents in a joint legal custody case before proceeding:

 

1.                  Enrollment or termination of enrollment in a particular school or school program.

2.                  Advancing or holding back in school.

3.                  Beginning or ending the regular practice of a religion.

4.                  Arranging for child care providers for long term and/or after school child care.

5.                  Selecting non-emergency medical, dental, orthodontic and/or psychological services.

6.                  Authorizing the child’s driver’s license.

7.                  Authorizing employment for the child.

8.                  Authorizing the child’s marriage.

9.                  Authorizing the child’s enlistment into the Armed Forces.

10.              Passport application for the child.

11.              Authorizing sex education for the child.

12.              Arranging or permitting regularly occurring extracurricular activities for the child.

13.              Authorizing the purchase of an automobile for the child.

14.              Authorizing or consenting to the minor donating blood.

 

The Judge clarified that this is not an exhaustive list, but rather a list to suggest the types of decisions that should be made jointly in joint custody cases.  When the parties cannot reach an agreement, they should either seek mediation or Court involvement to resolve the conflict.

 

For more information, or to contact an Arizona divorce lawyer, please check out our website at www.yourarizondivorcelawyer.com

Child Support and Spousal Maintenance When One Party Voluntarily Reduces His or Her Income

Friday, February 12th, 2010

The Court can attribute to a party his or her earning potential when considering an award of spousal maintenance or child support.  There have been many cases in which one party will voluntarily quit his or her job and thereby reduce his or her income during the divorce process in an attempt to pay less child support and/or spousal maintenance.

 

In a prior  case, Little v. Little, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s right to attribute to the Husband his higher earning potential, even though he reduced his income by returning back to school.  The Court held that it was his choice to return to school and take a pay cut, but that this did not change the financial needs of his children. 

 

In a recent case, Pullen v. Pullen, issued December 24, 2009, the Appellate Court found that the logic in Little v. Little, carries forward into spousal maintenance cases also. 

 

This is not to say that the Court must or will always set child support and/or spousal maintenance based upon the highest potential income of an individual in all cases.  The Court must take into consideration the reasons for the reduced income, whether voluntary or involuntary, the impact upon the people entitled to support, the conduct of both parties, whether the reduced income was acquiesced to by both parties, and the timing of the reduction of income. 

 

If you believe that your spouse has improperly reduced his or her income to adversely affect child support and/or spousal maintenance in your case, or if you are being accused of improperly reducing your income and believe that you did so in good faith, please contact an attorney at McGuire Gardner P.L.L.C. for a free initial consultation by telephone to discuss your rights.  To learn more, go to www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com, or visit us at www.mcguiregardner.com

Will the Judge Order the Other Party to Pay my Attorneys Fees in a Contested Divorce?

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Judges have the discretion under A.R.S. § 25-324 to order one party to pay all or part of the other party’s attorneys fees and costs incurred in a divorce or family law case.

 

In making an award of attorneys fees, the Court must consider two factors:  1) the relative financial resources of both parties; and 2) the reasonableness of the positions taken by both parties.

 

Generally, the more finances available to one party, based upon a higher earning capacity or sole and separate property belonging only to one party, the more likely the Court is to consider an award of attorneys fees. 

 

Also, the more unreasonable one party was in negotiations, or the more one party is at fault for causing the case to proceed to a contested trial, the more likely the Court will impose attorneys fees as a sanction. 

 

Courts prefer to have both parties pay for their own attorneys fees, unless one or both of the above factors stands out significantly.  I advise my clients to make decisions as if my clients will be left paying for all of the attorneys fees, as this is generally the result.  Incurring additional attorneys fees with the hope that the Court will make the other side pay for these fees may backfire, especially if the Court recognizes that you have done so and determines that doing so was an unreasonable position. 

 

To learn more and to schedule your free initial consultation by telephone, please call us at (480) 829 9081 or visit us at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. 

Division of Assets in Divorce

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Arizona law requires Courts in Dissolution of Marriage proceedings to equitably divide community and joint property. A.R.S. § 25-318(A). Furthermore, under Arizona law, “equitable” is synonymous with “equal” in most cases. For example, in Valladee v. Valladee, 149 Ariz. 304, 718 P.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1986), the Appellate Court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it directed a substantially unequal distribution of jointly held investment properties in order to reimburse husband for the expenditure of his separate funds in acquiring the properties. In another case, an offsetting award was not substantially equal, which was found to be an abuse of discretion. Lincoln v. Lincoln, 155 Ariz. 272, 746 P.2d 13 (Ct. App. 1987).

For more information visit our website at www.mcguiregardner.com or www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

McGuire Gardner announces new family law website.

Monday, November 9th, 2009

In order to better serve our family law clients we have launched a new website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.  This site is to supplement our existing firm wide website at www.mcguiregardner.com, and will be focused on family law and related issues. You can find answers to your questions about family law issues, and learn about divorce, child support and other issues.  We have designed our site to be a resource for our clients, and for those who are seeking information about these areas of the law.  Stay tuned to this blog for up to date information about family law issues in Arizona.

Arizona Divorce Lawyer comments on recent New York Times article regarding the “Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study”:

Monday, November 9th, 2009

In a recent article (November 2, 2009), entitled “Fathers Gain Respect From Experts” writer Laurie Tarkan, discusses recent studies and trends that recognize the importance of fathers’ involvement with their children.

Although fathers tend to spend time with their children in ways that differ from mother/child bonding, this time with fathers is important to the child’s development.

The article further discusses divorce related issues, and societal obstacles “conspiring” against fathers spending time with their children.

Children do better with a father when mother speaks positive about father.

The full article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03dads.html?hpw.

For more information, please visit our websites at www.mcguiregardner.com, or www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.