Charlotte Divorce Lawyer Blog

Alimony and Child Support Payments in the Public Eye

Published on: October 21, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Although their divorce is finalized, the aftermath of the divorce proceedings still continues in the North Carolina Court of Appeals for NASCAR Chair Brian France and his ex-wife, Megan. Brian’s lawyers are making an unusual request – that the proceedings should be closed to the public and the couple’s divorce agreement should be kept sealed.

Court documents filed before the hearing reveal that the divorce agreement gives Megan France at least $40,000 per month in child care reimbursement expenses (including “governess payments”) and alimony, as well as a $9 million distributive award. Also according to these documents, Brian France has recently refused to make some of the required payments. Megan France also accuses her ex-husband of harassing her by hiring private investigators to follow her, and violating their agreement concerning the care of their children.

Prenuptial Agreement or “Engagement Agreement”

Published on: October 18, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered a case where the trial court awarded $40,000.00 for an overly broad subpoena. This case involved a tort action on an “Engagement Agreement” containing a provision where Plaintiff (prospective husband) was obligated to support Defendant (prospective wife) for the rest of their lives whether they married or not. Prospective husband, convinced that prospective wife never intended to marry him, sued prospective wife for fraud and other such claims. The prospective husband thought that he had signed a prenuptial agreement, rather than an “Engagement Agreement.” Through the course of litigation, prospective husband subpoenaed documents from several of prospective wife’s former attorneys who were involved in the drafting of the “Engagement Agreement” – all objected.

North Carolina Child Support and Gross Monthly Income

Published on: October 15, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals further refined, in a case of first impression, the definition of “gross monthly income” for purposes of calculating North Carolina child support. In this case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed “gross monthly income” for child support calculation purposes. Two components of “gross monthly income” were evaluated by the North Carolina Court ojavascript:void(0);f Appeals:

1) Social Security and Medicare taxes employers are required to make on behalf of an employee.

On this issue, the Court of Appeals held that Social Security and Medicare taxes employers are required to make on behalf of an employee may not be considered income for child support purposes because these payments do not provide a parent with immediate access to funds that could be used to pay child support.

Charlotte, North Carolina Child Support Attorney – College Expenses

Published on: October 12, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently addressed, in an unpublished decision, whether a father’s lack of involvement in college choices relieves him of his responsibility to pay for college for the minor child. Under North Carolina law, the payment of college expenses is not required of parents as part of North Carolina child support. However, sometimes parents agree to pay for college expenses and include those provisions in their separation agreement.

Termination of Parental Rights Hearing Requires GAL to be Present

Published on: October 7, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered whether the word “represent” requires that a Guardian Ad Litem must actually be present at the hearing on whether the court would terminate the parental rights of the Father. In this case, the termination of parental rights was reversed based on the fact that the minor child’s Guardian Ad Litem was not physically present at the hearing in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes §§ 7B-601-1108 (2007). A Guardian Ad Litem’s attendance at hearings is mandated, and the Guardian Ad Litem shall represent the juvenile in all proceedings. The Guardian Ad Litem’s absence from some proceedings gave rise to a presumption of prejudice to the Respondent.

Establishment of Child Custody or Modification of Child Custody?

Published on: October 4, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned a ruling which established child custody using the “best interests of the child” analysis when it should have applied the “substantial change in circumstances” analysis for a motion to modify child custody. In December 2006 the trial court entered a custody order which set the matter for review in February 2007. Said review never happened and an order was entered in February 2007 closing the file. In March 2009 the trial court entered another custody order pursuant to a motion in the cause for establishment of child custody applying the “best interests” analysis. The Court of Appeals ruled that the December 2006 custody order constituted a permanent custody order and the trial court was required to find that a substantial change in circumstance affecting the welfare of the child had occurred prior to entering a new custody order.

Lawyer’s Motion for Modification of Child Custody Denied

Published on: September 30, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently decided a case relating to a motion to modify child custody custody in Cherry v. Thomas. The Mother’s child custody lawyer filed a motion to modify child custody. The trial court denied Mother’s motion to modify custody. The trial court held that there had been a substantial change in circumstances. However, it further held that Mother did not meet her burden of showing that the substantial change in circumstances actually affected the welfare of the minor child. The primary alleged substantial change related to the parents work schedules, they were North Carolina law enforcement officers. First they worked opposite shifts and days – the nonworking parent kept the minor child. Eventually, the work schedules changed to where both parents Monday through Friday during regular business hours. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Grandparent Visitation and Custody in Charlotte, North Carolina

Published on: September 28, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a Pew Research Center analysis of the most recent Census Bureau data, the number of children in the United States being raised by their grandparents rose sharply as the recession began. In all, approximately 7 million children live in households that include at least one grandparent. Of that number, 2.9 million are being raised primarily by their grandparents, a number up 16 percent from 2000, with a 6 percent surge from 2007 to 2008.

There are many reasons why grandparents are taking over child raising duties. Grandparents frequently report taking over when a single parent becomes overwhelmed with financial problems, is incarcerated, becomes ill, succumbs to substance abuse, or dies. High rates of divorce and teenage pregnancy as well as long overseas military deployments also factor into the increased dependence on grandparents.

According to the Pew Center, 34 percent of grandparent caregivers are unmarried, and 62 percent are women. Child-rearing by grandparents also varies by race, but the sharp rise in grandparent caregiving from 2007 to 2008 was among whites. However, overall, 53 percent of grandparent caregivers are white, 24 percent are black, and 18 percent are Hispanic.

Divorce Attorney Fees Paid by Divorce Insurance

Published on: September 24, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Now you can buy divorce insurance to cover your divorce attorney fees. The average cost of an American divorce this year ranged from about $15,000 to $30,000. As a result, the North Carolina-based insurance company SafeGuard Guaranty Corporation is now selling a divorce insurance product called WedLock. A unit of WedLock runs insureds $16 per month and provides $1,250 to cover expenses such as legal proceedings. Insureds can buy multiple units, and for every year they keep their policy, SafeGuard will reward them with another $250 of coverage for each unit they own.

How does WedLock work? When a married couple files for divorce, the policyholders simply send in their divorce papers to receive cash from SafeGuard. To prevent spouses who are already planning a divorce from working the system, SafeGuard require at least 36 months from the effective date until spouses can claim their coverage.

On its website, SafeGuard provides a Divorce Cost Calculator and a Divorce Probability Calculator for those who are unable to decide whether they need to procure divorce insurance.

Divorce Lawyers and Career Women

Published on: September 21, 2010 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

A recent study released in the October issue of the Journal of Family Issues indicates that career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources. This study, based on data covering 25 years, examines the relationship between wives’ economic resources and the risk of marital dissolution. The author of the study found that the economic resources of women are tightly linked to the risk of divorce, both negatively and positively.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women were the majority of payroll employees as of March 2010. Researchers found that the tipping point occurs when the wife pulls in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. Race was also a factor, as divorce was much more common for white couples than black couples.

The author of the study also emphasized the importance of the generational divide: while Baby Boomers and Generation X couples may still believe in the male breadwinner, the Millennial generation may feel differently. The author indicates that the group of women represented in the study did not include the Millennial generation, who may expect or desire to be their families’ breadwinners.