Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

Discrimination and North Carolina Child Custody Cases

Published on: February 9, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to one recent article, a new bill before the Utah legislature, HB88, would add a statement to Utah’s divorce statute saying that courts, when making a child custody determination, may not discriminate against a parent based on age, race, color, national origin, religious preference or gender.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, said he intends for the bill to ensure that judges consider both parents when deciding issues of custody, giving a complete look to both instead of the antiquated notion that the mother is a better choice in all circumstances.

One family who recently lost a young child after the drug addicted mother who won custody of her failed to prevent her death said that they were told, “unless the mother was in a hospital or a coffin there was nothing they could do.” Dan Deuel, of the American parental Action League, said that “In my mind, no discrimination is a no brainer.”

While the committee unanimously endorsed HB88, some lawmakers expressed their displeasure at having to remind judges to be fair in the first place. Representative Curtis Oda said that, “The court is supposed to be balanced. It seems to be going in the other direction.” Another lawmaker, Representative Jennifer Seelig, said she supported the legislation because it addresses the long-held notion that mothers are better parents than fathers. “I think it has potential not only for changing the system but for changing hearts and minds,” she said.

Women in North Carolina often end up without Health Insurance after Divorce

Published on: February 7, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

New research from the University of Michigan shows that women are more likely than men to wind up without health insurance following a divorce. The rates of women without insurance remain high even several years after a divorce becomes final.

The new study shows that many women lose their health insurance and struggle regaining it after divorce. Using 11 years of Census data, study author Bridget Lavelle looked at health insurance levels of women before and after divorce. She found that nearly 16% of women lose health insurance within six months of divorce and go without it for at least two years.

Lavelle, a Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, said that the women with the highest risk of losing coverage are those who were covered under a husband’s plan prior to the divorce. Of that group, the rate rises to nearly 1 out of every 4 that will become uninsured following separation.

Going along with the loss in insurance, research indicates that after a divorce many women suffer a substantial decline in overall economic well-being. This general decline makes it harder for women to afford health insurance, even if they were not original included under their husband’s plan.

Lavelle’s study did not look at the situation for men, but previous research, she said, shows that men do not suffer the decline in economic well-being to the same extent that women do. “Men are also less likely than women to be insured through a spouse’s insurance,” she said. “For both of these reasons, the risk of insurance loss is probably substantially less for men.”

Study says Divorce at a Young Age Hurts Worst

Published on: February 2, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A new Michigan State University study finds divorce at a younger age hurts people’s health more than divorce later in life. Study author and sociology professor Dr. Hui Liu said the findings, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, suggest older people have more coping skills to deal with the incredible stress that results from a divorce.

Liu said the findings indicate that there ought to be “more social and family support for the younger divorced groups.” Liu suggested that this might include “divorce counseling to help people handle the stress, or offering marital therapy or prevention programs to maintain marital satisfaction.”

Liu analyzed the self-reported health status of some 1,282 participants in a long-term national survey. She measured the gap in overall health between those who remained married during the 15-year study period and those who transitioned from marriage to divorce and at what age.

Liu found the gap was wider at younger ages. For example, among people born in the 1950s, those who got divorced between the ages of 35 and 41 reported more health problems in relation to their continuously married counterparts than those who got divorced in the 44 to 50 age range. Researchers were surprised to learn that divorce appears to have a more negative health impact for baby boomers than for individuals in older generations. Liu said she would have expected divorce to be less impactful for younger generations because divorce is so much more common among their age cohorts.

Liu offered an explanation for the difference. Perhaps because the pressure to stay married is so strong among older generations only those with the unhappiest marriages actually moved for divorce and thus, felt relief when the divorce was finalized.

The study confirmed something we mentioned in a previous post (Divorce Can Kill), that those who went from marriage to divorce experienced a generally more rapid health decline than those who remained married. It’s good to hear that those who remained divorced during the entire study period showed no difference with those who remained married.

Understanding the Importance of a Prenuptial Agreement in North Carolina

Published on: January 31, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Though most people would agree that marriage is a big step, representing a major life change, very few people understand the magnitude of the decision both legally and financially. People forget that marriage is, after all, a contract entered into by two people and it entails many of the same pitfalls as any other contractual relationship.

One of the things that many people may not realize is that even if one spouse contributes disproportionately more assets or income to the marital partnership, all of the assets likely eventually become merged into one marital pie where the lesser contributing spouse is entitled to half. This means one spouse could possibly walk away with a disproportionately larger share of the assets than they contributed. When couples agree to marry they typically are agreeing to relinquish half of your accumulated assets, something most newlyweds seldom think about. Some couples, likely those who marry young, may not have any appreciable assets. So, it may not be such a concern for them. However, those who have accumulated assets should give careful consideration to the business aspect of their marriage.

People take a business-like approach to other major events with potentially important financial implications like buying a house or a car. Yet when it comes to marriage, rarely is research conducted or fine print examined. A prenuptial agreement is an obvious way to protect yourself and watch out for both parties’ financial wellbeing. However, many people dismiss the idea as either being a sign of lack of genuine affection or as something only used by the ultra-wealthy. Neither is true.

A recent poll by Harris Interactive showed that when asked nearly half of divorced people said they wish they had a prenup when they married. Forty-four percent of single adults say they would want a prenup and yet only about 5% of couples actually go through with it. Why the disconnect?

Paternity and Child Support in North Carolina: The Impact of Senate Bill 203

Published on: January 26, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In 2011 the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill addressing how to go about setting aside an order of paternity and to allow relief from a child support order when the man responsible for payment is not the child’s father. The bill has a potentially important impact on child support cases where paternity is a disputed issue and thus deserves discussion.

Senate Bill 203 was introduced in Raleigh by Don Eastman and Floyd B. McKissick, Jr., and passed the NC General Assembly during the 2011 legislative session. It’ s intent was to modify existing child support laws. Section 1 of the bill states:

Notwithstanding the time limitations of G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other provision of law, an order of paternity may be set aside by a trial court if each of the following applies:

1) The affidavit of parentage was entered as the result of fraud, duress, mutual mistake or excusable neglect.

2) Genetic tests establish the putative father is not the biological father of the child.

The bill was proposed for several reasons, one being to address existing holes in North Carolina’s child support laws, another was to respond to the current economic climate and ensure that fathers are not forced to continue supporting children that they later discover are not biologically theirs.

The bill continues by clarifying that in any motion to set aside paternity it shall be the responsibility of the moving party (the person seeking to set aside the paternity determination) to meet the burden of proof. The legislature said that upon proper motion, courts should order the child’s mother, the child in question and the possible father to submit to genetic paternity testing.

If the court determines, as a result of genetic testing, that the potential father is not the biological father and that the order of paternity was entered as a result of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or excusable neglect, the court may then set aside the order of paternity. It’s important to note that nothing in the language is meant to alter the current presumption of legitimacy when a child is born to a mother and a father during the course of a marriage.

Divorce and Social Security Benefits in North Carolina

Published on: January 24, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

For many elderly Americans Social Security benefits are a critical component of their retirement plan. If you’re a baby boomer in charge of monitoring your parents’ finances or a retiree you should be aware that under certain circumstances it’s possible you might be receiving less than you should. If a woman is divorced or has been married more than once, or a woman’s husband delayed taking Social Security, she might be entitled to a bigger monthly benefit than she is currently receiving. Though the difference may not be huge, it could be critically important to someone with a limited or fixed income.

Discussing the ramifications of divorce on Social Security payments is fairly standard practice nowadays. That wasn’t always the case, however, and many older couples might never have been counseled on the possible impact.

Though the problems are faced by both men and women, the fact that women typically earn less over their working lives means that they are more likely to be collecting less in benefits then they may be entitled to due to earnings of a former spouse. This is because of rules which say an individual is entitled to collect Social Security benefits based on his or her own earnings history, or 50% of his or her spouse or former spouse’s benefit, if it is greater than his or her own, and 100% if the former spouse is deceased.

There are a few rules in order for this to apply to divorced couples: 1) the marriage must have lasted 10 years or longer, and 2) the individual seeking a former spouse’s benefit must currently be unmarried, unless the second (or third, or fourth…) marriage occurred after the age of 60.

A great example of this is as follows: your parents were married in the 1950s, your dad worked hard and your mom worked hard raising kids and working part-time at relatively low paying jobs when time allowed. Your parents later divorced and your mom’s Social Security benefit is now $800 per month while your dad’s stands at $2,000 per month. Rather than continue collecting the $800, your mother is actually entitled to collect $1,000 per month if your dad is still alive and the full $2,000 if he is deceased. As an added benefit, if the Social Security Administration determines a spouse is eligible for increased benefits then that person will receive retroactive benefits going back six months. It does not matter whether the spouse with the higher benefit remarried and getting this increase does not require their cooperation. The Social Security Administration has all the necessary information and makes the determination based on its own records.

Unhappy Groom Demands New Wedding

Published on: January 19, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In an rare case of a “Groomzilla”, the Associated Press reports that a recently divorced man is now demanding that a photography studio pay to recreate his wedding to make up for what he has decided are flawed pictures and videos of what was supposed to be his happiest day. Though many in the press have dubbed Todd Remis a “groomzilla,” he recently spoke out saying that his lawsuit is actually about holding a business to their promise, not clinging to a broken marriage.

While suits over wedding photographs are common occurrences, Remis’ case contained an unusual spin: a demand that the company recreate the ceremony of his now failed marriage. Remis began divorce proceedings in 2008 and the couple officially split in 2010.

Despite the marriage no longer existing, Remis says that he needs the “wedding recreated exactly as it was so that the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot” and the album and video completed “so we have memories of the wedding.” In order to capture this missing footage Remis acknowledges that “we would need to recreate everything.”

Remis began his lawsuit against H&H Photographers in 2009, saying the well-respected New York City-area studio had done a terrible job of shooting his and Milena Grzibovska’s December 2003 wedding. Remis claimed that the chosen photographer ignored the couple’s request not to shoot in front of a mirror that ended up reflecting photographers’ lights. Moreover, the photographer and videographer left 45 minutes before the end of the reception, missing the last dance and the bouquet toss, evidently crucial events in Remis’ mind.

The couple paid a $3,500 advance toward a $4,100 total price for the photos and videos, part of a wedding Remis has said cost more than $48,000. For their part, H&H co-owner Daniel Fried says he stands by the photographs and videos. “I think the photography is lovely,”

As Some States Slow Divorce, Others Kick It Into Gear

Published on: January 17, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

As we mentioned in a post last week (Some States Try to Slow Down Divorce), some states have made a move toward lengthening their divorce process in the name of looking out for the best interest of children. The Wall Street Journal reports that New Jersey is evidently not as concerned with such things. In fact, New Jersey is set to become the East Coast version of Vegas.

Legislation is currently sitting on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s desk which would turn this into a reality. The bill, if signed, would make it easier to get married in the state and would also expedite the process of getting a divorce.

The bill was passed by both houses of the New Jersey Legislature on Monday and would eliminate a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for a marriage or civil union license. The speed comes at a cost, however. The bill would see the cost of a marriage license rise to $60 from $28. Additionally, the bill would allow couples to annul a marriage within 30 days without the need to go to a court. Specific details on how the annulment process would function are still being hammered out. Currently, 29 states have no waiting period for a marriage license, but only two -Connecticut and Rhode Island – are in the Northeast.

The current rules in New Jersey require those who want an uncontested divorce to wait at least six months. The number is reduced to three months if the couple can demonstrate that the marriage is not working and that there has been fault.

The new bill has its fans and its detractors. Some believe it will bring more visitors to the state, increase revenue and be a generally positive change for New Jersey. Others say it cheapens the sanctity of marriage and will lead to increased family problems in the state.

Some States Try to Slow Down Divorce Process

Published on: January 12, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

If you want a divorce in Colorado, you might have to wait a bit longer than before. A new bill is heading to the state legislature for approval that seeks to add even more steps to the already complicated divorce process.

State Senator Kevin Lundberg is the primary backer of the legislation. The Republican says child safety is the reason behind instituting the bill. “When there are kids involved, I believe that it is in the states best interest to ensure that the couple understands and considers what impact this has on their children,” Lundberg said.

Lundberg’s bill would require couples to undergo a six-hour training session on how children are impacted by their parents calling it quits. Though current state law dictates that parents attend a similar session, it’s not nearly as in-depth.

Colorado attorney Catherine Burkey said, “When a case is initiated, then the people are ordered to go and attend a parenting class.” The primary difference with this new bill is that couples will now have to wait after completing the course. “There will be a period of months that they will wait before proceeding with the divorce,” Lundberg said.

Some divorce attorney’s agree that the proposed bill is a smart move. “This method of education is the best way that I know of at this point,” Burkey said. She anticipates that not everyone will be in favor of the bill, however.

Grand Junction Counseling, a group that specializes in helping families, says the more understanding parents have, the better. “Not only do you have the couple that’s going through this divorce, you have children going through a divorce. For the sake of the children I think it’s valuable,” Counselor, Stephen Anthony said.

Protecting Your Finances in a North Carolina Divorce

Published on: January 10, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Divorce is a process that can be mentally, emotionally and financially draining. While there’s not always much to be done about the mental and emotional pain, financial disaster can be mitigated with a little planning. The following are several tips by Angela Colley of BusinessInsider.com on how to prepare your money for a divorce.

1. Separate your bank accounts
Many couples preparing for a divorce will leave their joint checking accounts open, not wanting to appear spiteful. However, an irresponsible spouse might not be so considerate and could easily drain your joint account before you realize what has happened.

Establishing separate bank accounts and dealing with whatever uncomfortable conversation that might cause is better than taking the financial risk of inaction. The best advice would be take half the money from any joint account and place it in your own checking account.

2. Protect your credit
If you and your former spouse have joint credit accounts all the hard work you put into building a solid score can evaporate with a few bad financial decisions by your ex. Establishing separate credit and loan accounts is critical.

First things first, order an official copy of your credit report from all three credit reporting agencies: TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. Review the reports carefully and flag any accounts you share with your spouse.

Though it may be uncomfortable, have a direct conversation with your spouse and decide who wants to keep what and how the accounts ought to be divided.

Actually dividing these debts isn’t so easy. You cannot just call a lender and ask to have your name removed if the obligation is joint. Instead, the debt must usually be repaid or refinanced in the name of only one spouse. If the spouse responsible for the debt isn’t capable of having it refinanced alone then selling the asset or paying off the bill is usually the best move. Signing over control of an asset while leaving your name on the loan is a recipe for disaster and should be avoided at all costs.

3. Check on your insurance coverage
If you’ve shared insurance coverage with your spouse you may now find yourself out in the cold during a divorce. Plan ahead and negotiate a specific time to change the insurance, giving yourself enough time to secure new coverage. Make sure that you have the necessary health, auto and homeowners (or rental) insurance.