Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

Divorce Rings in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: March 29, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to an odd story in the New York Times, the concept of “divorce rings” is starting to gain appeal among a certain set. What is a divorce ring you may ask? Imagine a man bent on one knee, gazing up at surprised woman. He removes a jewelry box from his jacket and hands her a diamond ring in the shape of a broken heart. “Honey, will you divorce me?”
This bizarre scenario may not be as crazy as it seems. Alice Kwartler Antiques is now selling an 18-karat gold and diamond “divorce ring,” complete with a solitaire and jagged broken heart. At $3,200, the ring might cost more than a lot of people’s wedding bands. Rather than symbolizing eternal love, this one is meant to signify that things didn’t work out.
Using rings as a symbol of marital status can be traced back to ancient times. In the modern era, there are three marital statuses: single, married, and divorced. The idea of a “divorce ring” is just another way to signal a shift in a person’s life. The breakup ring would quickly let people know that a marriage is over, just as a wedding ring says that you’re taken. The ring can help avoid tiresome conversations with people about the status of your relationship and serves as a warning sign to newcomers.

Rather than wait to receive such a ring, others might decide to purchase one for themselves as a symbol of surviving the pain of the divorce process. There’s a spirit of starting over, or renewal in the rings and buyers have been known to throw themselves divorce parties or splurge on “divorcemoons.”

After a Divorce in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: March 27, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to one recent article, it can be difficult to know how to approach a future relationship with your ex. It’s complicated given all the water under the bride and can be awkward moving forward. A good general rule of thumb is that amicable splits make for better friendships than ones involving infidelity and jealousy.

The article lays out five questions to ask yourself to determine if you’ve really moved on and are able to just be friends with your former spouse.
1. You immediately want to be friends after breaking up.

Accepting that your partner is no longer part of your life is a great way to move on from the marriage. This realization may allow you to salvage a friendship. People who can’t accept life without their spouse often don’t make for good friends as the underlying reason is to try and stay close to someone they weren’t ready to party with.

2. You miss your ex’s company.

You need to decide what exactly you miss, is it that romantic alone time or the funny jokes you’d tell laugh about together. Articulating this will help you decide whether you are missing the actual person vs. missing the relationship.

3. You talk about the past often.

Taking trips down memory is normal in the beginning to pave over an awkward situation. But if you continue to dwell on the past or have relationship talk that shows that you’re not ready to move on and that you’re only attempting to cling to what once was.

4. You talk about dating other people.

Talking about romantic relationships with new people is awkward, but if jealousy rears its head that’s a good sign that the friendship is not strictly platonic. You may believe that you can maintain a friendship without disclosing each other’s romantic lives, but this is likely untrue. Dating and relationships will continue to be a part of both of your lives and if you are unable to share this, then the point of the friendship lacks the opportunity to grow and change.

5. You think about getting back together one day.

Divorce Expo in Charlotte, North Carolina?

Published on: March 22, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent CNBC article, a divorce expo called “Start Over Smart,” took place in New York over the weekend and was much like a bridal expo, only with lawyers instead of white gowns.

The expo was the idea of Francine Baras and Nicole Baras Feuer, a mother-daughter team who have both been through the painful process. “Bridal magazines are all over the place. There’s no divorce magazine, no divorce community, so a lot of people just rely on information from their attorney,” said Baras Feuer. The mother-daughter duo heard about a similar expo in Paris and decided to try their hand at one closer to home.

The divorce expo was a two-day extravaganza that included a wide variety of panel discussions, from guidelines for parents and divorce for Baby Boomers to how to get back in the dating game after divorce.

Approximately 40 exhibitors set up shop and included lawyers, financial advisers, therapists, life coaches, dieticians, anti-aging companies, a hair stylist and even a matchmaker. Major wealth management firm Morgan Stanley was represented as was a woman who offered to perform a “divorce ceremony” where you write words that remind you of your former spouse and set them on fire. “People often don’t know the questions to ask about finances when they get a divorce,” said Mark Seruya, financial advisor with Morgan Stanley. “People wind up getting referrals from parents or friends. Your father’s financial adviser might not be the right fit,” he said. “It’s a fragmented market. We want to be one of the go-to teams in the divorce industry.”

Pretext to a North Carolina Divorce or Just a Fight?

Published on: March 20, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, as couples deal with the difficulties inherent in every relationship it is sometimes hard to know when a fight is just a fight or the beginning of the end.
According to research from the Gottman Institute, couples typically wait an average six years in a less-than-happy marriage before seeking help. Deciding whether and when to call it quits is an obviously difficult and sad process.

A new type of therapy, called “discernment counseling,” offers a new approach. Discernment counseling, pioneered by Bill Doherty, a professor in the family social science department at the University of Minnesota, sets out to help couples decide whether to divorce or remain married. Doherty thought up the idea after a local family court judge mentioned that he was surprised by the number of people divorcing that seemed to get along so well that he was confused why they were splitting up.

In a recent study of divorcing couples published in the Family Court Review, the results showed that about 30% of individuals who were divorcing said they would seriously consider a reconciliation service if it was offered by the court. Further exploration of the numbers showed that after comparing responses of both spouses, about 10% of couples had both partners interested in reconciliation.
Doherty has decided that in 30% of couples headed for divorce one spouse is what is described as “leaning out,” or wanting to go, while the other is “leaning in,” or wanting to stay. In discernment counseling, he helps the leaning-out spouse decide if leaving is the best answer and helps the leaning-in spouse cope with the final decision without worsening the situation. After working through their issues, he lays out three alternatives: marriage as it has been, divorce, or a six-month reconciliation with marriage therapy. Of the 25 couples that have gone through the process 40% decided to try the reconciliation.

Cohabitating North Carolina Couples Not More at Risk for Divorce

Published on: March 15, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, nearly half of all first marriages break up within 20 years. Some people attempt to beat the odds by testing out their relationship by living together prior to marriage. But does that actual help things or only speed along the relationship’s inevitable demise?

A new study, part of a larger marriage survey of 22,000 men and women, suggests that living together is not the kiss of death it once was thought to be. In years past, living together was a good signal regarding the poor health of an eventual relationship. The study author said that now living together prior to marriage is not as big of predictor of divorce as it used to be.

The trend towards cohabitation has been on the rise for decades. In the 1960s only about 10% of couples moved in together first. Among those they were more likely to end up divorced. Today, about 60% of couples live together before they first marry.

“It’s so common, it’s not surprising it no longer negatively affects marital stability,” said Wendy Manning, co-director of the National Center for Family & Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

The recent study by the Centers for Disease Control happily found that those who were engaged and living together before their wedding were about as likely to have marriages that lasted 15 years as couples who had not lived together prior to marriage.

But how about those who were living together but weren’t engaged? The new study found that marriage was less likely to survive the 10 and 15-year mark among this subgroup. These findings echoed studies from years past.

Big Child Support Change Brewing in South Carolina

Published on: March 13, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article by The State, a single South Carolina mother occupied with running a day care and raising two sons won a South Carolina Supreme Court case recently that may end up requiring divorced parents who pay child support to also pay for their kids to go to college.

The woman, Kristi McLeod said she was so shocked she had to stop by her lawyer’s office to ensure that she had heard the news correctly. The justices voted 3-2 in her favor, ruling that college education is now so critical to success in today’s world that the state has an interest in ensuring that it is paid for.

McLeod and her husband divorced in 1993. His income subsequently skyrocketed from $29,000 to almost $250,000 a year by 2008. Despite this vast increase child support for Kristi McLeod stayed at $175 a week for the two children. The whole time she never made more than $40,000 running a day care.

When McLeod’s son decided to go to college his father agreed via email to repay student loans and pick up miscellaneous expenses. The father also unilaterally decided to reduce his child support payments for his other son to $100 per week.

The father ultimately failed to hold up to his end of the bargain and McLeod decided to sue. A Family Court judge ruled in the father’s favor, saying he wasn’t required to pay college costs. The lower court judge also reduced how much support McLeod collected and refused to require her ex-husband to pay her attorney.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court decided to hear the case and reversed all previous lower court decisions on the subject.

In her majority opinion, Justice Kay Hearn wrote that, “Although the decision to send a child to college may be a personal one, it is not one we wish to foreclose to a child simply because his parents are divorced.”

The son has since graduated from college and is working as a fingerprint analyst for the FBI.

Two justices dissenting, citing current state law which specifically mentions paying support until a child finishes high school but does not mention college costs at all. “Had the Legislature intended for a parent to pay college expenses as an incident of continuing child support, I believe it would have specifically included the phrase ‘college graduation.'”

Same-Sex Couples and Child Custody Disputes

Published on: March 8, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article on Yahoo.com, a brewing battle between a Florida lesbian couple could spark an important debate over the definition of motherhood.

The women are both in their 30s and both members of law enforcement. One of the women donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That partner eventually gave birth in 2004.

In 2006 the couple split up and the birth mother left the state with the child without informing her former partner. The egg-donating woman eventually tracked them down in Australia and began a battle to get the child back in Florida. The fight has now made its way to the Florida Supreme Court which has not yet decided whether it will hear the case. A trial judge ruled in favor of the birth mother saying the biological mother had no parental rights under Florida law. The lower court judge was quick to point out that he hoped to be overruled, but until then had to follow existing law.

The 5th District Court of Appeal did as requested and sided with the biological mother, holding that both women had parental rights to the child. The case combines several controversial issues, including a 1993 state law regulating sperm and donation and a larger question of the constitutional right of homosexuals to raise children and be entitled to equal protection under the law.

The biological mother is not attempting to blaze any trails. According to her lawyer she simply wants to see her daughter again, “She hasn’t seen her daughter in years, and it’s been terribly, terribly difficult for her.”

The Florida duo isn’t the only lesbian couple embroiled in such a dispute. One Virginia woman who renounced her homosexuality has been in hiding with her daughter since a 2009 court decision requiring that her former partner be given custody.

Closer to home, former North Carolina state Sen. Julia Boseman, the first openly gay member of the state’s Legislature, is suing for joint custody of a 2-year-old son born to a woman Boseman referred to as her spouse.

In the Florida case, the Court of Appeal decided that the women’s decision to separate did not dissolve the parental rights of either woman. This despite the argument by the birth mother citing the state’s law on sperm and egg donation, which says that donors “relinquish all maternal or paternal rights,” to argue that the biological mother wasn’t the child’s parent.

The appellate court reversed the lower court judge in a 2-1 decisions finding that the biological mother wasn’t merely a “donor” under the law because she and her former partner intended to parent the child together. The Court ultimately found that they could not find any valid legal reason to deprive either woman of parental rights. The majority further ruled that the donor law was unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Use Caution in Post-Divorce Dating

Published on: March 6, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article appearing on Yahoo.com, people emerging from a divorce may not find much luck in the dating department immediately thereafter. Though for some who had to go years without any new romance this is not only normal, it’s also healthier than a rebound relationship.

New York psychologist Leah Klungness, Ph.D. and co-author of The Complete Single Mother, says that while a divorcee may be experiencing pain and confusion following a divorce, it’s better to go through that then to numb yourself with an instant attempt to date. The distraction actually makes the healing process take longer.

As the single time drags on you may want to figure out why you’re dateless. Usually there are two main reasons for a post-divorce dating drought.

1. You’re not ready to date yet
You may feel lonely, your friends and family may try to set you up with someone but that does not mean you’re actually ready to date again. “Emotional preparedness for dating doesn’t happen magically because the final papers have been signed,” says Dr. Klungness. “Anger, bitterness, thoughts about betrayal and infidelity can linger. If these feelings aren’t worked through, they quickly surface, even in casual dating situations, and can sabotage any chance of romance.”

The best rule of thumb according to Dr. Klungness is that, “When the thought of dating starts with an ‘I should’ instead of an ‘I want,’ it’s a red flag.” Rather than rush into something you’re not really ready for, regrouping and giving yourself time to heal is the best plan. Use the time to do the things you love, concentrate on yourself and put yourself first for once.

One sign that you may be ready to date is when people start to genuinely look attractive to you. “Repeated instances of being attracted to different people suggests the authenticity of your feelings,” explains Jerald Jellison, Ph.D., author of Managing the Dynamics of Change. According to Dr. Jellison, when you’re attracted enough to consider spending time with five different people you should be ready to begin dating again.

Change to Federal Benefits May Leave Those Behind on Child Support with No Money at All

Published on: March 1, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Charlotte Observer, an important change could soon have an unexpected impact relating to child support debts. The change has come about as an attempt to reduce money spent by the federal government in mailing out paper checks. The Treasury Department has decided to begin making government benefits payments electronically in March of 2013. This will put a stop to the paper checks that many rely on to shield a portion of their monthly income from states that attempt to collect back child support.

States have the power to put a freeze on bank accounts of those who owe child support. A relatively recent ruling by the Treasury Department now authorizes states to freeze Social Security, disability and veterans’ benefits that appear in bank accounts. Once the decision to eliminate paper checks is implemented some 275,000 people could lose access to all of their income.

This presents huge problems for a certain segment of the population, the often poor men behind on their child support. There are many instances where these back payments are decades old and concern child who are long since grown. Much of the money owed is for interest and accumulated fees.

Of the money that is collected most will go to governments, not to the children of the men who were owed the money. States are permitted to keep this money as repayment for money they spent on providing welfare services for these children.

Though the goal is a good one, cracking down on deadbeat dads not paying the money they owe to their children. Unfortunately, the method of going about this will likely produce complicated and even counterproductive effects. Many of the men on the receiving end of this new collection practice are already facing financial ruin in the form of eviction, foreclosure and inability to pay other bills. By allowing states to seize federal benefits, these men may very well be left penniless.

Beginning next march the Treasury Department will deposit all federal benefits directly into bank accounts or load them onto prepaid debit cards. Regardless of the chosen method state governments will be allowed to reach the money. According to the Treasury Department these electronic payments are expected to save the government $1 billion over the next 10 years. The savings result from the shipping costs: about $1 to mail a check compared with about 10 cents for an electronic transfer.

States are currently only permitted to garnish only 65% of the benefits an individual is entitled to before they are disbursed. This same limit does not apply once the money is in an account and states are then allowed to have banks freeze it.
Other federal agencies are calling the practice into question, starting with the Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS does not want states to collect child support so aggressively that poor people are left with nothing, spokesman Ken Wolfe says. Though details are scarce, Wolfe said HHS is developing guidelines for states to “make sure we’re not putting someone into deep poverty as a result of an automatic collection.”

DHHS says they have research indicating that the policy could make life harder for people collecting government benefits. People who owe large amounts of child support are almost exclusively poor. The figures are stark: among those owing $30,000 or more, three-fourths had no reported income or income of less than $10,000.

Name Change Following Marriage Still a Sensitive Subject

Published on: February 28, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

One recent article on Yahoo.com, discussed the issues women face even in the modern age. Though women’s place in the world has risen dramatically, there are still instances where problems persist. One example of a semantic issue that nonetheless speaks to a woman’s role in the world involves the attitudes about women changing or not changing their names following marriage.

A study dedicated to examining the issue was authored by two Pennsylvania State University sociologists, Laurie Scheuble and David Johnson. Previous studies regarding name-changing focused on the New York Times wedding announcement page, something that resulted in a very limited pool of research subjects. This new study used data from two surveys (one from 1990 and the other from 2006) conducted at a Midwestern university. Additionally, the study surveyed hundred of students at Penn State asking about name-changing and their opinion on the practice.

Surprisingly, the 2006 survey showed that students were three times more likely to say that if a woman did not take her husband’s last name upon marriage, she was less committed to him and their future together. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Midwestern women were less likely than those at Penn State to say they wanted to keep their own names. The oddest part of this information is that the 2006 survey indicates stronger attitudes against name-changing than the 1990 survey.

In 1990, only 2.7% of students believed that a woman keeping her own name was less committed to her marriage. By 2006 this number jumped to 10.1%.

Regardless of the practice’s perception among Midwestern college students, a woman changing her name (or not) is no indication of commitment in a relationship. Evidence of this is that educated professional women tend to marry at a later age and thus hang onto their own names yet also tend to have more long-lasting (and hopefully happier) marriages.