The richer and more educated you are, the more likely you are to marry, or to be married — or, conversely, if you're married, you're more likely to be well off.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031962,00.html?iid=redirect-marriage
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Decline of Marriage
There was a very interesting study on the decline of marriage and rise of new families by the Pew Research Center.
The full report is here:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/
The survey found a striking differences by generation. In 1960, two-thirds (68%) of all twenty-somethings were married. In 2008, just 26% were. How many of today’s youth will eventually marry is an open question. For now, the survey finds that the young are much more inclined than their elders to view cohabitation without marriage and other new family forms — such as same sex marriage and interracial marriage — in a positive light.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
The full report is here:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/
The survey found a striking differences by generation. In 1960, two-thirds (68%) of all twenty-somethings were married. In 2008, just 26% were. How many of today’s youth will eventually marry is an open question. For now, the survey finds that the young are much more inclined than their elders to view cohabitation without marriage and other new family forms — such as same sex marriage and interracial marriage — in a positive light.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Monday, November 15, 2010
Are you thinking about getting a divorce?
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Why Do So Many Entrepreneurs get Divorced?
check out this article on Inc.com at http://www.inc.com/magazine/20101101/why-so-many-entrepreneurs-get-divorced.html:
No one, as far as I know, breaks out divorce statistics for entrepreneurs, but I'd wager they're higher than the U.S. average. Fortunately, my husband and I are not among that number. The demands of Gary's business, Stonyfield Yogurt, have created periods of distance and suffocating tension between us. But our marriage has survived the occasional stony silence and slammed door. Still, given the pressures on entrepreneurs and their families, it could easily have been otherwise.
Common causes of divorce include financial strain, neglect, lack of communication, and divergent goals. Postmortems on the remains of entrepreneurs' marriages can turn up all four in abundance. Other professions keep people away from home and preoccupy their thoughts, but they don't produce the toxic cocktail of resentment and anxiety created by putting the family's security constantly at risk. Then there's that green-eyed minx, Jealousy. How often have you heard an entrepreneur describe her company as her "passion"? How often have you heard one say the same thing about her spouse?
More fundamentally, people start companies to do their own things, while marriage is about doing things together. Particularly in already-strained marriages, there is no tension a business can't make worse. Kyle (for this column I'm mostly omitting last names) recognized fissures in his marriage before he launched an electronics manufacturing company. Afterward, those fissures widened into canyons. Kyle admits he neglected his wife, poring over business plans when she wanted to chat. For her part, his wife didn't take him seriously; she openly doubted that the company would ever support them. Her resentment assumed material form. If Kyle bought a tool for his business, then his wife would go out and buy jewelry of equal value. "Once I bought an oscilloscope, and in return I had to buy her a Corvette," Kyle told me. "She considered my stuff toys. Playthings." The couple divorced after two years.
Kyle's situation highlights how conflicting perspectives can destroy a union -- specifically if the entrepreneur insists he is acting in his family's interest, but the spouse believes he is acting in his own. One test of the entrepreneur's motivation is how much of the family's collective life he is willing to sacrifice with little payoff. Tony, a software and media entrepreneur, admits subjecting his wife to "eight years of damn-near abject poverty and suffering" while he struggled to produce and sell a TV show. Finally, "she couldn't take it anymore," he said. "Two kids in diapers and wondering where next month's mortgage payment was coming from." Tony's wife delivered an ultimatum: the TV show or her. "I said the TV show," he told me. "That was the day the love died." The marriage died with it.
Sometimes, entrepreneurship changes a person -- and not for the better. In the crucible of company building, traits such as bossiness, self-importance, and impatience intensify. Roger says his wife of 23 years dominated their relationship even before she became an entrepreneur. In his view, building a successful company made her feel so powerful and confident that she became dismissive of him. "The seeds of our dissolution were already there," says Roger. "But they were like popcorn. The heat of the business made them pop up all over the place."
Ironically, Roger says, the thrill of starting a business initially reinvigorated their relationship with freshness and energy. But over time, as his wife's workaholism continued, Roger asked if she really still wanted a husband. "She replied with some version of, 'Not now. Maybe later.' "
Roger had reason to resent his wife's treatment. But some male spouses of female entrepreneurs have less justifiable complaints. Even in 2010, marriages are still being wrecked on the rocks of sexism: There are husbands who resent rather than celebrate their wives' entrepreneurial success. The CEO of a thriving PR agency told me she split from her husband when he became emotionally and physically abusive in response to her growing independence. "He would tell people I wore the pants in the family, just because of my income," she said. Of course, successful women in any profession risk similar backlash. But entrepreneurs -- by definition leaders of others -- may pose a particular threat to vulnerable male egos.
Just as company building can lead to divorce, divorce can destabilize a company, and even sap brand equity if the company trades on a family image. Chris Blanchard grows 20 acres of vegetables at Rock Spring Farm in Iowa, a stone's throw from the Minnesota border. In his original marketing materials (which he is slowly replacing), he and his now-ex-wife, Kim, were the literal face of the farm. They still smile together in newspaper articles, from brochures, and on posters in natural-food stores. "We had this public image of the idyllic farm family, and that was part of what we were selling," Chris told me. He hasn't lied about the end of his marriage, but he hasn't broadcast it, either. "Look, my customers want a good story with their vegetables," he said. "They want a narrative. This divorce just doesn't belong in a Smith & Hawken catalog. And I have a business to run."
Chris assumed considerable debt to renegotiate his equipment and real estate loans after the divorce, putting the farm on shakier financial footing. He sorely misses Kim's skills and perspective. (Recently, in fact, he hired her back to work on the farm.) But farming has humbled him; he understands that outside forces can wound a business. There are droughts. There are floods. And now there is divorce.
Spouse partners and those who work in the company suffer their own reversals of fortune and status with divorce. Kim put 10 years of sweat equity into their farm; her only way out of an unhappy marriage was to leave that investment behind. "I didn't want to destroy the farm by asking for half of it," Kim says. She emerged without a job, her own credit history, or even a title to list on a resumé. Roger, whose wife thought she might want a husband later, lost his CFO spot along with his marriage. "I'd made a huge contribution, and that identity was stolen from me," he says.
In one respect, entrepreneurs are like everyone else who divorces. They vow to do things differently next time. Many accept blame for having skewed priorities and promise their future spouses undivided attention. They talk about date nights and shared hobbies. The next marriage -- like the next company -- will benefit from lessons learned in the failure of the first.
But prospective spouses of divorced entrepreneurs: Tread carefully.
Entrepreneurs are teachable but not wholly reformable. Underneath the grace notes of good intentions, I heard a common bass lick: The business will still come first. As Chris Blanchard puts it, "Anybody I get involved with will have to know that I already have one wife -- and it's the farm."
"My priorities haven't really changed," another divorced entrepreneur told me. "I still have big plans."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
No one, as far as I know, breaks out divorce statistics for entrepreneurs, but I'd wager they're higher than the U.S. average. Fortunately, my husband and I are not among that number. The demands of Gary's business, Stonyfield Yogurt, have created periods of distance and suffocating tension between us. But our marriage has survived the occasional stony silence and slammed door. Still, given the pressures on entrepreneurs and their families, it could easily have been otherwise.
Common causes of divorce include financial strain, neglect, lack of communication, and divergent goals. Postmortems on the remains of entrepreneurs' marriages can turn up all four in abundance. Other professions keep people away from home and preoccupy their thoughts, but they don't produce the toxic cocktail of resentment and anxiety created by putting the family's security constantly at risk. Then there's that green-eyed minx, Jealousy. How often have you heard an entrepreneur describe her company as her "passion"? How often have you heard one say the same thing about her spouse?
More fundamentally, people start companies to do their own things, while marriage is about doing things together. Particularly in already-strained marriages, there is no tension a business can't make worse. Kyle (for this column I'm mostly omitting last names) recognized fissures in his marriage before he launched an electronics manufacturing company. Afterward, those fissures widened into canyons. Kyle admits he neglected his wife, poring over business plans when she wanted to chat. For her part, his wife didn't take him seriously; she openly doubted that the company would ever support them. Her resentment assumed material form. If Kyle bought a tool for his business, then his wife would go out and buy jewelry of equal value. "Once I bought an oscilloscope, and in return I had to buy her a Corvette," Kyle told me. "She considered my stuff toys. Playthings." The couple divorced after two years.
Kyle's situation highlights how conflicting perspectives can destroy a union -- specifically if the entrepreneur insists he is acting in his family's interest, but the spouse believes he is acting in his own. One test of the entrepreneur's motivation is how much of the family's collective life he is willing to sacrifice with little payoff. Tony, a software and media entrepreneur, admits subjecting his wife to "eight years of damn-near abject poverty and suffering" while he struggled to produce and sell a TV show. Finally, "she couldn't take it anymore," he said. "Two kids in diapers and wondering where next month's mortgage payment was coming from." Tony's wife delivered an ultimatum: the TV show or her. "I said the TV show," he told me. "That was the day the love died." The marriage died with it.
Sometimes, entrepreneurship changes a person -- and not for the better. In the crucible of company building, traits such as bossiness, self-importance, and impatience intensify. Roger says his wife of 23 years dominated their relationship even before she became an entrepreneur. In his view, building a successful company made her feel so powerful and confident that she became dismissive of him. "The seeds of our dissolution were already there," says Roger. "But they were like popcorn. The heat of the business made them pop up all over the place."
Ironically, Roger says, the thrill of starting a business initially reinvigorated their relationship with freshness and energy. But over time, as his wife's workaholism continued, Roger asked if she really still wanted a husband. "She replied with some version of, 'Not now. Maybe later.' "
Roger had reason to resent his wife's treatment. But some male spouses of female entrepreneurs have less justifiable complaints. Even in 2010, marriages are still being wrecked on the rocks of sexism: There are husbands who resent rather than celebrate their wives' entrepreneurial success. The CEO of a thriving PR agency told me she split from her husband when he became emotionally and physically abusive in response to her growing independence. "He would tell people I wore the pants in the family, just because of my income," she said. Of course, successful women in any profession risk similar backlash. But entrepreneurs -- by definition leaders of others -- may pose a particular threat to vulnerable male egos.
Just as company building can lead to divorce, divorce can destabilize a company, and even sap brand equity if the company trades on a family image. Chris Blanchard grows 20 acres of vegetables at Rock Spring Farm in Iowa, a stone's throw from the Minnesota border. In his original marketing materials (which he is slowly replacing), he and his now-ex-wife, Kim, were the literal face of the farm. They still smile together in newspaper articles, from brochures, and on posters in natural-food stores. "We had this public image of the idyllic farm family, and that was part of what we were selling," Chris told me. He hasn't lied about the end of his marriage, but he hasn't broadcast it, either. "Look, my customers want a good story with their vegetables," he said. "They want a narrative. This divorce just doesn't belong in a Smith & Hawken catalog. And I have a business to run."
Chris assumed considerable debt to renegotiate his equipment and real estate loans after the divorce, putting the farm on shakier financial footing. He sorely misses Kim's skills and perspective. (Recently, in fact, he hired her back to work on the farm.) But farming has humbled him; he understands that outside forces can wound a business. There are droughts. There are floods. And now there is divorce.
Spouse partners and those who work in the company suffer their own reversals of fortune and status with divorce. Kim put 10 years of sweat equity into their farm; her only way out of an unhappy marriage was to leave that investment behind. "I didn't want to destroy the farm by asking for half of it," Kim says. She emerged without a job, her own credit history, or even a title to list on a resumé. Roger, whose wife thought she might want a husband later, lost his CFO spot along with his marriage. "I'd made a huge contribution, and that identity was stolen from me," he says.
In one respect, entrepreneurs are like everyone else who divorces. They vow to do things differently next time. Many accept blame for having skewed priorities and promise their future spouses undivided attention. They talk about date nights and shared hobbies. The next marriage -- like the next company -- will benefit from lessons learned in the failure of the first.
But prospective spouses of divorced entrepreneurs: Tread carefully.
Entrepreneurs are teachable but not wholly reformable. Underneath the grace notes of good intentions, I heard a common bass lick: The business will still come first. As Chris Blanchard puts it, "Anybody I get involved with will have to know that I already have one wife -- and it's the farm."
"My priorities haven't really changed," another divorced entrepreneur told me. "I still have big plans."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Mediated Divorces Now More Common
This interesting article appeared on AZcentral.com at:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/12/20101112biz-mediateddivorce1113.html
Saving time and money appears to be the trend these days, and it isn't any different when getting divorced.
From 2009 to 2010, Out of Court Solutions, a mediation firm, has seen a 55 percent increase in the number of divorces being settled by its mediators. It not only can save money, but it also helps a couple keep their divorce settlement private.
It is also not an option just being exercised by the general public in Arizona. Even celebrities, such as Tiger Woods and his now ex-wife, Elin Nordegren, went with a mediated settlement out of court, taking advantage of the option's relatively private legal proceedings.
In a mediated divorce settlement, a couple decide to have a mediator set up a session in which issues of their divorce are resolved out of court.
The mediator can be a lawyer, attorney-mediator, former or retired judge, health professional, accountant or whomever is fitting for the decisions at hand.
"What I do is help them to communicate and negotiate effectively, offer different options and alternatives for resolving whatever issues they have and provide them with legal, financial and tax information," said Oliver Ross, owner and founder of Out of Court Solutions.
Ross is a certified legal-document preparer in Arizona. He was a licensed attorney in California for 19 years before establishing Out of Court Solutions.
The types of issues typically decided in mediation include division of assets, allocation of debt, child support, child custody, the sharing of time with children and spousal maintenance or support.
Signed agreements reached through mediation are binding.
If a couple cannot solve their differences through mediation, both parties can litigate their issues, but anything said during mediation is confidential, according to Arizona statute.
Arizona doesn't require parties to go through mediation before trial, but it is encouraged. The state recommends alternative dispute resolution, which sends both parties to a judge pro tem 30 days before trial.
In this situation, the mediator is the judge, as opposed to an attorney-mediator or a legal-document preparer such as Ross. This is the only officially sanctioned program for mediation before divorce.
"People who seek mediation early on in their case already have a mind-set of wanting to resolve it quickly and amicably, and for those cases where the parties seek out mediation early, (those cases) are probably the most successful," said John Zarzynski, certified family-law specialist and lead mediator at Agreement House.
Often, mediation is a much quicker and less-expensive means of settling a divorce. Zarzynski said divorces in Maricopa County usually take a year to settle. With mediation, the settlement can be made in 90 days.
"Usually, they (the two parties) are going to play nice and respect the other party," said Ron Saper, a divorce attorney in Phoenix. "If you are going to trial, you may not know what a judge is going to rule. There is less predictability and less participation in the ultimate outcome."
Mediation is also viewed as a process that takes less of a toll on children than litigation.
"The legal system is an adversarial process, and the more adversity there is, the higher the tension, and that's going to fall not only on the couple but the children, too," Ross said.
Mediation is not always the right way to go, however. For cases in which there is persistent domestic violence, allegations of child abuse or neglect or mental-health issues suffered by one or both parties, mediation is typically not appropriate.
"Mediators can't tell you what to do," Saper said. "They can't really break a tie if the parties can't agree, which can cost you more money since you then have to pay for mediation and litigation."
To avoid failure during mediation, a few important things must be done. One of the first is to find the right mediator.
"You want someone who will get it done in one, two or three sessions," Zarzynski said.
"In my view, if we haven't figured out a solution before three sessions, you might want to consider litigation."
Some people might try to avoid the emotional stress that accompanies divorce, and it is possible to find a mediator who will be perceptive and respectful of this.
"I advocate situational mediation, which is where the mediator adapts his or herself to the situation of the people involved and the nature of the dispute, all the while recognizing there are tremendous emotions going on," Ross said.
For Woods and Nordegren, mediation was likely the right decision because they had similar goals.
"It is a good example of a well-settled divorce given their circumstances because both probably had a common goal to keep things low-key and to keep it out of the press, whether for their children or for financial reasons," Saper said.
As for couples going through divorces right now, the same civil split is possible.
"If they accept that the divorce has to be, then they must remember the goal of getting through it quickly, inexpensively, smoothly and with as little stress and strain as possible," Ross said.
If you would like to learn more about mediating your divorce please contact me for a free consultation.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/12/20101112biz-mediateddivorce1113.html
Saving time and money appears to be the trend these days, and it isn't any different when getting divorced.
From 2009 to 2010, Out of Court Solutions, a mediation firm, has seen a 55 percent increase in the number of divorces being settled by its mediators. It not only can save money, but it also helps a couple keep their divorce settlement private.
It is also not an option just being exercised by the general public in Arizona. Even celebrities, such as Tiger Woods and his now ex-wife, Elin Nordegren, went with a mediated settlement out of court, taking advantage of the option's relatively private legal proceedings.
In a mediated divorce settlement, a couple decide to have a mediator set up a session in which issues of their divorce are resolved out of court.
The mediator can be a lawyer, attorney-mediator, former or retired judge, health professional, accountant or whomever is fitting for the decisions at hand.
"What I do is help them to communicate and negotiate effectively, offer different options and alternatives for resolving whatever issues they have and provide them with legal, financial and tax information," said Oliver Ross, owner and founder of Out of Court Solutions.
Ross is a certified legal-document preparer in Arizona. He was a licensed attorney in California for 19 years before establishing Out of Court Solutions.
The types of issues typically decided in mediation include division of assets, allocation of debt, child support, child custody, the sharing of time with children and spousal maintenance or support.
Signed agreements reached through mediation are binding.
If a couple cannot solve their differences through mediation, both parties can litigate their issues, but anything said during mediation is confidential, according to Arizona statute.
Arizona doesn't require parties to go through mediation before trial, but it is encouraged. The state recommends alternative dispute resolution, which sends both parties to a judge pro tem 30 days before trial.
In this situation, the mediator is the judge, as opposed to an attorney-mediator or a legal-document preparer such as Ross. This is the only officially sanctioned program for mediation before divorce.
"People who seek mediation early on in their case already have a mind-set of wanting to resolve it quickly and amicably, and for those cases where the parties seek out mediation early, (those cases) are probably the most successful," said John Zarzynski, certified family-law specialist and lead mediator at Agreement House.
Often, mediation is a much quicker and less-expensive means of settling a divorce. Zarzynski said divorces in Maricopa County usually take a year to settle. With mediation, the settlement can be made in 90 days.
"Usually, they (the two parties) are going to play nice and respect the other party," said Ron Saper, a divorce attorney in Phoenix. "If you are going to trial, you may not know what a judge is going to rule. There is less predictability and less participation in the ultimate outcome."
Mediation is also viewed as a process that takes less of a toll on children than litigation.
"The legal system is an adversarial process, and the more adversity there is, the higher the tension, and that's going to fall not only on the couple but the children, too," Ross said.
Mediation is not always the right way to go, however. For cases in which there is persistent domestic violence, allegations of child abuse or neglect or mental-health issues suffered by one or both parties, mediation is typically not appropriate.
"Mediators can't tell you what to do," Saper said. "They can't really break a tie if the parties can't agree, which can cost you more money since you then have to pay for mediation and litigation."
To avoid failure during mediation, a few important things must be done. One of the first is to find the right mediator.
"You want someone who will get it done in one, two or three sessions," Zarzynski said.
"In my view, if we haven't figured out a solution before three sessions, you might want to consider litigation."
Some people might try to avoid the emotional stress that accompanies divorce, and it is possible to find a mediator who will be perceptive and respectful of this.
"I advocate situational mediation, which is where the mediator adapts his or herself to the situation of the people involved and the nature of the dispute, all the while recognizing there are tremendous emotions going on," Ross said.
For Woods and Nordegren, mediation was likely the right decision because they had similar goals.
"It is a good example of a well-settled divorce given their circumstances because both probably had a common goal to keep things low-key and to keep it out of the press, whether for their children or for financial reasons," Saper said.
As for couples going through divorces right now, the same civil split is possible.
"If they accept that the divorce has to be, then they must remember the goal of getting through it quickly, inexpensively, smoothly and with as little stress and strain as possible," Ross said.
If you would like to learn more about mediating your divorce please contact me for a free consultation.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Monday, July 26, 2010
Divorce Article in the Arizona Republic
Here is an interesting article that appeared in the Arizona Republic yesterday:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/25/20100725friendly-divorce.html
When John Jarvis visits his 13-year-old daughter, he stays in the guest room of his ex-wife's house.
Bob Murphy of Chandler offered his ex-wife a key to his house when they divorced earlier this year after 26 years of marriage.
It's nothing like your parents' divorce, right?
Some of today's divorcing couples, who as kids in the '80s witnessed some wretched family separations as bitter as the movie "War of the Roses," are vowing to do it differently. Even if their own parents didn't divorce, many kids saw how hard it was on their friends.
So more couples are opting for a friendly divorce, whether through mediation, collaboration or even do-it-yourself kits. And the majority of couples choosing friendly divorces are those with children.
However they do it, they want the process to be more amicable. In the end, they save time, money and increase the odds that they might actually still be friends. And the kids are the biggest beneficiaries.
Joint custody has become the norm, with arrangements more fluid than in the generations when children mostly lived with Mom and saw Dad on Wednesday evenings and every other weekend.
This new kind of divorced mom and dad might attend parent-teacher conferences together, work jointly to get one kid to Little League and the other to piano lessons - even if it's not technically their visitation day - and share calendars electronically so Dad can arrange to take the kids when mom's out of town on business.
"It just seems much more humane and friendly," says Jarvis, 54, who admits that his staying at his ex-wife's Chandler house when he visits his daughter, Hannah, does raise some eyebrows. Many divorced couples can't stand to be in the same room together, let alone spend days together and face each other every morning over coffee.
Jarvis lives in Massachusetts, and staying with his former wife not only means he gets more time with Hannah, but it saves money on hotels and rental cars, so he can afford to come more often.
When he and Elenore Long decided to get a divorce earlier this year after 16 years of marriage, they agreed to go to mediation. Their lives were going in separate directions but they still wanted the best for one another.
They went to the Agreement House in Phoenix, a firm that offers personal and business mediation services. It was opened a year ago by a longtime family-law attorney and a mediator.
There, Jarvis and Long sat side by side across the table from the lawyer and, together, came up with some financial solutions and custody arrangements.
"It's not that the conversation didn't get lively and emotional, but with a mediator at the table, we kept coming back to 'What's best for Hannah?'" Long, 46, says. "It really asked us to be our best selves rather than our petty selves."
Traditional vs. friendly
Most divorce cases still are handled in the traditional way, with lawyers on each side trying to get the best deal for their client, often through nasty disagreements over custody, child support, property settlements and finances. Divorcing couples typically aren't feeling friendly toward each other anyway, and contentious experiences in court can make those feelings even worse.
"It makes it almost impossible to have a civil relationship going forward. You don't forget what it's like to be cross-examined by your spouse's lawyer," says family law attorney John Zarzynski, who co-founded Agreement House. "It sets them up for years and years of not being able to communicate well."
Mediation is one kind of a friendly divorce. Collaboration is another, in which both parties retain their own attorneys but also use experts and work together for a solution for everyone. Couples don't set foot in court in either instance. Proponents say it reduces the emotional costs on everyone; both children and adults start their new lives on relatively stable ground.
No one keeps statistics on the number of mediated and collaborative divorces. But Zarzynski, during 31 years of practice, has seen the trend firsthand. When he started, mediated cases were rare. Ten years ago, he mediated about a dozen a year; last year, that number was 75.
"A lot of the folks who have come have really already figured out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money on lawyers to battle it out," Zarzynski says.
A typical traditional divorce can stretch out for months - even years - and cost both parties $15,000 to $25,000.
Zarzynski says a mediated divorce, on average, costs $1,000 and takes 70 days, including the state's mandatory cooling-off period of 60 days.
A collaborative divorce involves more people - it may add a financial adviser, psychologist or divorce coach to the mix - so it costs a bit more than a mediated divorce. A 2004 study in Texas shows that instead of a typical 18-month, $14,000 process through litigation, a collaborative divorce took an average of 18 weeks and $9,000 to complete.
And a divorce with no kids involved and a do-it-yourself legal kit for $39.95 may run $500 with court fees.
Over the past 30 years, mediation's popularity has grown as an alternative to going to court across the U.S. in all kinds of legal disputes. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia now offer mediation programs to settle disputes over money, property and other matters within their court systems. In California, mediation is mandatory for contested child custody and visitation. And, in attempts to ease the negative effects of divorce on children, at least 28 states, including Arizona, require divorcing couples to attend parenting classes that among other things teach the importance of parenting together.
Friends, not adversaries
As for Bob Murphy, he had seen all five of his brothers go through ugly divorces, and he wanted none of it.
So when Murphy and his wife decided to split up earlier this year, one of his brothers, hoping to save his little brother from the same bad experience, suggested Murphy call Zarzynski.
"Instead of both of us going out to find the most expensive, meanest lawyer we each could find, we sat down together - on the same side of the table - and figured out what would be best for our kids," Murphy says.
It took four hours.
Together, Murphy and his now ex-wife decided he would keep the house when they divorced and stay there with their four kids, ages 21, 18, 12 and 10.
"After it was all said and done, we agreed that this is a good deal for both of us," he says.
By their agreement, his ex-wife gets the kids three days a week. But he wants her to see them as much as she likes, so they often talk daily to arrange visits. He even made a key to his house available, to make it easier for her to pick up forgotten homework or sports gear while he was at work.
Murphy and his ex-wife attended their son's recent college graduation together, sitting with the rest of the kids as a family. Murphy figures they have a lifetime of those kinds of occasions to come: graduations, holidays and weddings.
"Now I can look at my ex-wife as a friend and not as an adversary," Murphy says.
Setting the tone
How parents interact and handle the kids during the initial separation and early in the divorce sets the tone for the years ahead, says Barbara Schaffer, a clinical social worker in Tucson who is part of the Collaborative Law Group of Southern Arizona. She got involved in the friendly- divorce movement in 2002 after going through her own divorce and thinking there had to be a better way.
Research shows that kids who remain close to both parents are less stressed by divorce, and dads who are connected to their kids are more likely to keep up with their obligations, financial and otherwise.
Jarvis grew up on a reservation in Idaho, where amicable divorces were plentiful, so he was open to mediation. After his parents divorced, his mother and stepfather regularly played cards with his father and stepmother.
"I didn't realize how unique that was until I grew up," Jarvis says.
He and Long suspect it will be the same for Hannah. She is still sad about her parents' divorce, no matter how well they get along. But when Jarvis stays at Long's house, he gets to enjoy the small moments of parenting: seeing Hannah tousle-haired first thing in the morning, being there in the middle of the night if she has a bad dream. On a trip this summer, he and Hannah spent 18 hours at her computer, editing a book she's written.
Jarvis likes that he can still be a good dad to his daughter and a good friend to his ex-wife. And, because the split has been so manageable, he can still keep the relationships he developed over the 21 years they were together. Both couples have kept ties with each other's families, and friends haven't been forced to choose between them for weekend barbecues and parties.
When Jarvis is in town, he helps around Long's house, fixing the washing machine or toilet. He and Long talk on the phone often, asking about each other's work and life in general. They'll attend a family wedding together in August.
"This is someone I loved for a long time," Long says. "We still want the best for each other."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/25/20100725friendly-divorce.html
When John Jarvis visits his 13-year-old daughter, he stays in the guest room of his ex-wife's house.
Bob Murphy of Chandler offered his ex-wife a key to his house when they divorced earlier this year after 26 years of marriage.
It's nothing like your parents' divorce, right?
Some of today's divorcing couples, who as kids in the '80s witnessed some wretched family separations as bitter as the movie "War of the Roses," are vowing to do it differently. Even if their own parents didn't divorce, many kids saw how hard it was on their friends.
So more couples are opting for a friendly divorce, whether through mediation, collaboration or even do-it-yourself kits. And the majority of couples choosing friendly divorces are those with children.
However they do it, they want the process to be more amicable. In the end, they save time, money and increase the odds that they might actually still be friends. And the kids are the biggest beneficiaries.
Joint custody has become the norm, with arrangements more fluid than in the generations when children mostly lived with Mom and saw Dad on Wednesday evenings and every other weekend.
This new kind of divorced mom and dad might attend parent-teacher conferences together, work jointly to get one kid to Little League and the other to piano lessons - even if it's not technically their visitation day - and share calendars electronically so Dad can arrange to take the kids when mom's out of town on business.
"It just seems much more humane and friendly," says Jarvis, 54, who admits that his staying at his ex-wife's Chandler house when he visits his daughter, Hannah, does raise some eyebrows. Many divorced couples can't stand to be in the same room together, let alone spend days together and face each other every morning over coffee.
Jarvis lives in Massachusetts, and staying with his former wife not only means he gets more time with Hannah, but it saves money on hotels and rental cars, so he can afford to come more often.
When he and Elenore Long decided to get a divorce earlier this year after 16 years of marriage, they agreed to go to mediation. Their lives were going in separate directions but they still wanted the best for one another.
They went to the Agreement House in Phoenix, a firm that offers personal and business mediation services. It was opened a year ago by a longtime family-law attorney and a mediator.
There, Jarvis and Long sat side by side across the table from the lawyer and, together, came up with some financial solutions and custody arrangements.
"It's not that the conversation didn't get lively and emotional, but with a mediator at the table, we kept coming back to 'What's best for Hannah?'" Long, 46, says. "It really asked us to be our best selves rather than our petty selves."
Traditional vs. friendly
Most divorce cases still are handled in the traditional way, with lawyers on each side trying to get the best deal for their client, often through nasty disagreements over custody, child support, property settlements and finances. Divorcing couples typically aren't feeling friendly toward each other anyway, and contentious experiences in court can make those feelings even worse.
"It makes it almost impossible to have a civil relationship going forward. You don't forget what it's like to be cross-examined by your spouse's lawyer," says family law attorney John Zarzynski, who co-founded Agreement House. "It sets them up for years and years of not being able to communicate well."
Mediation is one kind of a friendly divorce. Collaboration is another, in which both parties retain their own attorneys but also use experts and work together for a solution for everyone. Couples don't set foot in court in either instance. Proponents say it reduces the emotional costs on everyone; both children and adults start their new lives on relatively stable ground.
No one keeps statistics on the number of mediated and collaborative divorces. But Zarzynski, during 31 years of practice, has seen the trend firsthand. When he started, mediated cases were rare. Ten years ago, he mediated about a dozen a year; last year, that number was 75.
"A lot of the folks who have come have really already figured out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money on lawyers to battle it out," Zarzynski says.
A typical traditional divorce can stretch out for months - even years - and cost both parties $15,000 to $25,000.
Zarzynski says a mediated divorce, on average, costs $1,000 and takes 70 days, including the state's mandatory cooling-off period of 60 days.
A collaborative divorce involves more people - it may add a financial adviser, psychologist or divorce coach to the mix - so it costs a bit more than a mediated divorce. A 2004 study in Texas shows that instead of a typical 18-month, $14,000 process through litigation, a collaborative divorce took an average of 18 weeks and $9,000 to complete.
And a divorce with no kids involved and a do-it-yourself legal kit for $39.95 may run $500 with court fees.
Over the past 30 years, mediation's popularity has grown as an alternative to going to court across the U.S. in all kinds of legal disputes. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia now offer mediation programs to settle disputes over money, property and other matters within their court systems. In California, mediation is mandatory for contested child custody and visitation. And, in attempts to ease the negative effects of divorce on children, at least 28 states, including Arizona, require divorcing couples to attend parenting classes that among other things teach the importance of parenting together.
Friends, not adversaries
As for Bob Murphy, he had seen all five of his brothers go through ugly divorces, and he wanted none of it.
So when Murphy and his wife decided to split up earlier this year, one of his brothers, hoping to save his little brother from the same bad experience, suggested Murphy call Zarzynski.
"Instead of both of us going out to find the most expensive, meanest lawyer we each could find, we sat down together - on the same side of the table - and figured out what would be best for our kids," Murphy says.
It took four hours.
Together, Murphy and his now ex-wife decided he would keep the house when they divorced and stay there with their four kids, ages 21, 18, 12 and 10.
"After it was all said and done, we agreed that this is a good deal for both of us," he says.
By their agreement, his ex-wife gets the kids three days a week. But he wants her to see them as much as she likes, so they often talk daily to arrange visits. He even made a key to his house available, to make it easier for her to pick up forgotten homework or sports gear while he was at work.
Murphy and his ex-wife attended their son's recent college graduation together, sitting with the rest of the kids as a family. Murphy figures they have a lifetime of those kinds of occasions to come: graduations, holidays and weddings.
"Now I can look at my ex-wife as a friend and not as an adversary," Murphy says.
Setting the tone
How parents interact and handle the kids during the initial separation and early in the divorce sets the tone for the years ahead, says Barbara Schaffer, a clinical social worker in Tucson who is part of the Collaborative Law Group of Southern Arizona. She got involved in the friendly- divorce movement in 2002 after going through her own divorce and thinking there had to be a better way.
Research shows that kids who remain close to both parents are less stressed by divorce, and dads who are connected to their kids are more likely to keep up with their obligations, financial and otherwise.
Jarvis grew up on a reservation in Idaho, where amicable divorces were plentiful, so he was open to mediation. After his parents divorced, his mother and stepfather regularly played cards with his father and stepmother.
"I didn't realize how unique that was until I grew up," Jarvis says.
He and Long suspect it will be the same for Hannah. She is still sad about her parents' divorce, no matter how well they get along. But when Jarvis stays at Long's house, he gets to enjoy the small moments of parenting: seeing Hannah tousle-haired first thing in the morning, being there in the middle of the night if she has a bad dream. On a trip this summer, he and Hannah spent 18 hours at her computer, editing a book she's written.
Jarvis likes that he can still be a good dad to his daughter and a good friend to his ex-wife. And, because the split has been so manageable, he can still keep the relationships he developed over the 21 years they were together. Both couples have kept ties with each other's families, and friends haven't been forced to choose between them for weekend barbecues and parties.
When Jarvis is in town, he helps around Long's house, fixing the washing machine or toilet. He and Long talk on the phone often, asking about each other's work and life in general. They'll attend a family wedding together in August.
"This is someone I loved for a long time," Long says. "We still want the best for each other."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Sunday, July 18, 2010
We are now helping our clients with their bankruptcy needs.
I am pleased to announce that the firm has expanded its practice to include consumer bankruptcy. Divorce can be one of the most financially devastating events in your life. We have found over the years that many clients file or consider filing for bankruptcy at some time after their divorce. As a result, we are now able to counsel our clients on whether or not bankruptcy is right for them, and if it is, help guide them thru that difficult time in their lives.
Check out our new bankruptcy website at www.phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyers.com.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Check out our new bankruptcy website at www.phoenix-bankruptcy-lawyers.com.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Facebook is a Divorce Lawyer's Best Friend
Here is an interesting (and somewhat comical) article that follows up on one of my earlier posts regarding beware what you post on social media as it can and will be used against you in divorce and family law proceedings:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37986320/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
The body of the article is as follows:
Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, 'Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
— Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
— Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
— Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
— Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
What you say can and will be held against you
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, 'I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
Beware your frenemies
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A picture may be worth ... big bucks
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
Privacy, privacy, privacy
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. 'Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37986320/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
The body of the article is as follows:
Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.
Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.
"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."
Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.
About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.
"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, 'Are you kidding me?'"
Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
— Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
— Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."
— Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.
— Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)
Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.
"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."
Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.
"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."
The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:
What you say can and will be held against you
If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
"We tell our clients when they come in, 'I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.
Beware your frenemies
Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.
"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."
A picture may be worth ... big bucks
Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.
"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.
Privacy, privacy, privacy
They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.
Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. 'Gee judge, who lied to you?'"
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Monday, June 21, 2010
Medical Marijuana and Child Custody Cases
Here is an interesting article discussing how the use of medical marijuana can negatively impact your child custody case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37822194/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37822194/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Legal Separation vs. Divorce
Many times I have been asked what is the difference between getting a legal separation and getting a divorce. The quick answer is, very little.
Generally speaking a legal separation is going to deal with all of the same issues that are dealt with in a divorce, that being division of assets and debts, child custody, child support, parenting time and spousal maintenance.
The big difference is that if you reconcile with your spouse you don't need to get remarried again if you are only legally separated, whereas if you are divorced you would have to remarry your ex-wife (I actually know someone who has done this).
There are a couple of advantages to a legal separation to some couples though.
These advantages include:
1) It allows a cooling off period where people can spend time apart and figure out what they really want;
2) It allows some people to not violate their religious convictions that might prohibit divorce;
3) There may be certain social security benefits that you would remain or become eligible for as a spouse;
4) You may be able to remain on your spouse's health insurance;
5) If you are a military spouse, if you stay married for ten years you can take advantage of benefits set up by the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Generally speaking a legal separation is going to deal with all of the same issues that are dealt with in a divorce, that being division of assets and debts, child custody, child support, parenting time and spousal maintenance.
The big difference is that if you reconcile with your spouse you don't need to get remarried again if you are only legally separated, whereas if you are divorced you would have to remarry your ex-wife (I actually know someone who has done this).
There are a couple of advantages to a legal separation to some couples though.
These advantages include:
1) It allows a cooling off period where people can spend time apart and figure out what they really want;
2) It allows some people to not violate their religious convictions that might prohibit divorce;
3) There may be certain social security benefits that you would remain or become eligible for as a spouse;
4) You may be able to remain on your spouse's health insurance;
5) If you are a military spouse, if you stay married for ten years you can take advantage of benefits set up by the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tax Implication Differences between Child Support & Spousal Maintenance
There are differences in the tax implications between child support and spousal maintenance.
Child support is not considered income to the payee for tax purposes, nor is it deducted from the gross income of the payor.
However, spousal maintenance (many times referred to as alimony), is taxable income to the payee, and is deducted from the taxable income of the payor.
A knowledge of this helps in guiding clients as to what is the most financially advantageous resolution to their matter. Receiving or paying $1500.00 in total (meaning spousal maintenance and child support combined) a month can have dramatically different tax ramifications depending upon how much of the total is made up spousal maintenance and how much is made up of child support.
If you have questions regarding a potential divorce please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Child support is not considered income to the payee for tax purposes, nor is it deducted from the gross income of the payor.
However, spousal maintenance (many times referred to as alimony), is taxable income to the payee, and is deducted from the taxable income of the payor.
A knowledge of this helps in guiding clients as to what is the most financially advantageous resolution to their matter. Receiving or paying $1500.00 in total (meaning spousal maintenance and child support combined) a month can have dramatically different tax ramifications depending upon how much of the total is made up spousal maintenance and how much is made up of child support.
If you have questions regarding a potential divorce please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Religion and Divorce Update
I recently made a post entitled "Religion and Divorce", and I found this article on Huffingtonpost.com that is a follow-up:
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
What is ADR and is it Useful?
ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Divorce and Marriage Statistics
Here's a sampling of some of the most recently available statistics on marriage and divorce in the United States of America (Source is the U.S. Census Bureau & National Center for Health Statistics):
* There were approximately 2,230,000 marriages in 2005 -- down from 2,279,000 the previous year, despite a total population increase of 2.9 million over the same period.
* The divorce rate in 2005 (per 1,000 people) was 3.6 -- the lowest rate since 1970, and down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. (The peak was at 5.3 in 1981, according to the Associated Press.)
* The marriage rate in 2005 (per 1,000) was 7.5, down from 7.8 the previous year.
* In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000). Arkansas was a close second, with a divorce rate of 6.3, followed by Wyoming at 5.3. The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5. (Figures were not complete for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, or Oklahoma.)
* 8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents -- the lowest figure in the Western world.
* As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. And in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion in child support and/or spousal support (84% of the payers were male).
* Americans tend to get married more between June and October than during the rest of the year. In 2005, August had the most marriages at about 235,000 or a rate of 9.3 per 1,000 people. The previous year, July was the highest month at 246,000, or a rate of 9.9; this doubled the lowest month in 2004, January.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
* There were approximately 2,230,000 marriages in 2005 -- down from 2,279,000 the previous year, despite a total population increase of 2.9 million over the same period.
* The divorce rate in 2005 (per 1,000 people) was 3.6 -- the lowest rate since 1970, and down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. (The peak was at 5.3 in 1981, according to the Associated Press.)
* The marriage rate in 2005 (per 1,000) was 7.5, down from 7.8 the previous year.
* In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000). Arkansas was a close second, with a divorce rate of 6.3, followed by Wyoming at 5.3. The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5. (Figures were not complete for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, or Oklahoma.)
* 8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents -- the lowest figure in the Western world.
* As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. And in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion in child support and/or spousal support (84% of the payers were male).
* Americans tend to get married more between June and October than during the rest of the year. In 2005, August had the most marriages at about 235,000 or a rate of 9.3 per 1,000 people. The previous year, July was the highest month at 246,000, or a rate of 9.9; this doubled the lowest month in 2004, January.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Updating Your Estate Planning Documents After a Divorce
At the conclusion of your divorce, there are still several things you need to do to "finalize" the big change in your life.
One of those things is to make changes to your estate planning documents.
In many instances, married couples have executed Wills, Trusts, General Power of Attorneys and Health Care Power of Attorneys, appointing their respective spouse as the Personal Representative/Attorney. Additionally, the spouse is to receive the entirety of the decedent's estate.
It is imperative that all of these estate planning documents be revised. There is no need to wait until the completion of the divorce to do this. This can be commenced at any time. In my opinion, the earlier the better.
Client's also need to check (and possibly change) their beneficiary designations on any life insurance policies, bank accounts and retirement accounts.
If you have questions regarding these issues please contact an experienced attorney in your area.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
One of those things is to make changes to your estate planning documents.
In many instances, married couples have executed Wills, Trusts, General Power of Attorneys and Health Care Power of Attorneys, appointing their respective spouse as the Personal Representative/Attorney. Additionally, the spouse is to receive the entirety of the decedent's estate.
It is imperative that all of these estate planning documents be revised. There is no need to wait until the completion of the divorce to do this. This can be commenced at any time. In my opinion, the earlier the better.
Client's also need to check (and possibly change) their beneficiary designations on any life insurance policies, bank accounts and retirement accounts.
If you have questions regarding these issues please contact an experienced attorney in your area.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Friday, March 12, 2010
Can I Choose to Not Work to Get Out of Paying Child Support?
Nice try but no.
The Arizona Child Support Guidelines paragraph 5(E) states, “If a parent is unemployed or working below full earning capacity, the court may consider the reasons. If earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity.” Additionally, the paragraph states, “[i]n accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320, income of at least minimum wage shall be attributed to a parent ordered to pay child support.”
A.R.S. 25-320(N) states, “[t]he court shall presume, in the absence of contrary testimony, that a parent is capable of full-time employment at least at the applicable state or federal adult minimum wage, whichever is higher.”
So, for example, if you used to have a job making $50,000.00 a year and you voluntarily chose to stop working, the Court may attribute you $50,000.00 a year in income for child support calculation purposes.
Additionally, at a very minimum, the Court will attribute minimum wage income to you unless you have some sort of condition that prevents you from being able to work.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
The Arizona Child Support Guidelines paragraph 5(E) states, “If a parent is unemployed or working below full earning capacity, the court may consider the reasons. If earnings are reduced as a matter of choice and not for reasonable cause, the court may attribute income to a parent up to his or her earning capacity.” Additionally, the paragraph states, “[i]n accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320, income of at least minimum wage shall be attributed to a parent ordered to pay child support.”
A.R.S. 25-320(N) states, “[t]he court shall presume, in the absence of contrary testimony, that a parent is capable of full-time employment at least at the applicable state or federal adult minimum wage, whichever is higher.”
So, for example, if you used to have a job making $50,000.00 a year and you voluntarily chose to stop working, the Court may attribute you $50,000.00 a year in income for child support calculation purposes.
Additionally, at a very minimum, the Court will attribute minimum wage income to you unless you have some sort of condition that prevents you from being able to work.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Monday, March 8, 2010
Religion and Divorce
This is an interesting article that was in Newsweek by Dahlia Lithwick titled, "Whose God Wins?":
Joseph Reyes, an Afghanistan veteran and law student, converted to Judaism when he married Rebecca Shapiro in 2004. When they split up in 2008, Rebecca won primary custody of their daughter and Joseph got regular visitation. The Reyeses had allegedly agreed to raise their child Jewish, but Joseph, seeking to expose his 3-year-old to his Catholic faith, had her baptized last November. When Rebecca found out, she obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting Joseph from "exposing Ela Reyes to any other religion other than the Jewish religion during his visitation." But Joseph then took his daughter to Catholic mass on Jan. 17, with a local TV news crew in tow, prompting his ex-wife's lawyers to demand he be held in criminal contempt—with a maximum punishment of six months in prison. Can a court decide what religion your child will be?
Joseph Reyes says no, and once he decided to fight for his religious liberty in the courts of cable television, complicated legal issues were reduced to black and white. Headlines shrieked that a father faced jail time for exposing his daughter to God. The case sounds very constitutional. But instead of legal analysis we've mostly gotten typically nasty divorce-court spitballs. For instance, Joseph now says he wasn't really Jewish. He says he converted to Judaism "under duress" to mollify his in-laws, and that Rebecca is a bully. And he and his lawyer requested, and won, a new judge because the original judge, Edward Jordan, is Jewish. None of this has anything to do with the actual case, but it does get the blood pressure soaring.
Since Joseph doesn't dispute that he violated the restraining order, the only important issue here is whether a family-court judge can order divorcing spouses to raise a child in just one religion. In her court pleadings, Rebecca Reyes argues that she has sole custody of Ela, that the couple agreed to raise the child Jewish and sent her to a Jewish preschool, and that exposure to another religion would "confuse" her.
Joseph, in his pleadings, says Ela was not harmed by her baptism, and that under Illinois law a noncustodial parent can attend religious services with his or her child unless there is "proof of harm to the child" or it "interferes with the custodial parent's selection of the child's religion." Finally, Joseph says the restraining order violates his religious freedom. And that's the stuff headlines are made of.
I polled family lawyers as to how often they had come across an order like Judge Jordan's. Some said it's uncommon; others disagreed. But one thing is clear: family courts interfere with constitutional freedoms all the time. A family-court judge infringes on your right to free speech when he bars you from speaking ill of your ex-husband in front on the kids. She can prevent you from interstate travel if you seek to move your child away from your ex. The Bill of Rights isn't the last word in divorce proceedings, but when a court restrains fundamental constitutional freedoms, like speech, travel, or religion, it's usually for an important reason: the best interest of your child. This is the interest we hear about least in the Reyes case, amid the fulminating over parental rights.
As Joseph Gitlin, a prominent Chicago family lawyer, points out, in Illinois the custodial parent is permitted, by statute, to "determine the child's upbringing, including, but not limited to, his education, health care, and religious training." This necessarily means the other parent will be shut out of such decisions. The tricky question in the Reyes case is whether religion is more a zero-sum proposition or a buffet table. How does exposing a child to two religions differ from exposing her to two languages or teaching her to play two instruments?
Missouri family lawyer Michael Albano warns that back when family-court judges could micromanage parental religious practices, lesbians, for instance, were denied custody and could not even associate with their partners. "Courts cannot police every situation," he says, and that means "generally allowing both parents to expose the child to their religious beliefs." When forced to, some state courts have struck down divorce decrees requiring a single religion for a child; others have upheld them. As Judge Jordan learned, attempting to balance one parent's religious freedom against the other parent's religious exceptionalism rarely works, because, as Joe Gitlin puts it, for most of us "there's always only one way to heaven, and it's mine." But either way, every lawyer I spoke to agreed that there are plenty of good ways to modify custody arrangements. Violating those arrangements on live television isn't one of them
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Joseph Reyes, an Afghanistan veteran and law student, converted to Judaism when he married Rebecca Shapiro in 2004. When they split up in 2008, Rebecca won primary custody of their daughter and Joseph got regular visitation. The Reyeses had allegedly agreed to raise their child Jewish, but Joseph, seeking to expose his 3-year-old to his Catholic faith, had her baptized last November. When Rebecca found out, she obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting Joseph from "exposing Ela Reyes to any other religion other than the Jewish religion during his visitation." But Joseph then took his daughter to Catholic mass on Jan. 17, with a local TV news crew in tow, prompting his ex-wife's lawyers to demand he be held in criminal contempt—with a maximum punishment of six months in prison. Can a court decide what religion your child will be?
Joseph Reyes says no, and once he decided to fight for his religious liberty in the courts of cable television, complicated legal issues were reduced to black and white. Headlines shrieked that a father faced jail time for exposing his daughter to God. The case sounds very constitutional. But instead of legal analysis we've mostly gotten typically nasty divorce-court spitballs. For instance, Joseph now says he wasn't really Jewish. He says he converted to Judaism "under duress" to mollify his in-laws, and that Rebecca is a bully. And he and his lawyer requested, and won, a new judge because the original judge, Edward Jordan, is Jewish. None of this has anything to do with the actual case, but it does get the blood pressure soaring.
Since Joseph doesn't dispute that he violated the restraining order, the only important issue here is whether a family-court judge can order divorcing spouses to raise a child in just one religion. In her court pleadings, Rebecca Reyes argues that she has sole custody of Ela, that the couple agreed to raise the child Jewish and sent her to a Jewish preschool, and that exposure to another religion would "confuse" her.
Joseph, in his pleadings, says Ela was not harmed by her baptism, and that under Illinois law a noncustodial parent can attend religious services with his or her child unless there is "proof of harm to the child" or it "interferes with the custodial parent's selection of the child's religion." Finally, Joseph says the restraining order violates his religious freedom. And that's the stuff headlines are made of.
I polled family lawyers as to how often they had come across an order like Judge Jordan's. Some said it's uncommon; others disagreed. But one thing is clear: family courts interfere with constitutional freedoms all the time. A family-court judge infringes on your right to free speech when he bars you from speaking ill of your ex-husband in front on the kids. She can prevent you from interstate travel if you seek to move your child away from your ex. The Bill of Rights isn't the last word in divorce proceedings, but when a court restrains fundamental constitutional freedoms, like speech, travel, or religion, it's usually for an important reason: the best interest of your child. This is the interest we hear about least in the Reyes case, amid the fulminating over parental rights.
As Joseph Gitlin, a prominent Chicago family lawyer, points out, in Illinois the custodial parent is permitted, by statute, to "determine the child's upbringing, including, but not limited to, his education, health care, and religious training." This necessarily means the other parent will be shut out of such decisions. The tricky question in the Reyes case is whether religion is more a zero-sum proposition or a buffet table. How does exposing a child to two religions differ from exposing her to two languages or teaching her to play two instruments?
Missouri family lawyer Michael Albano warns that back when family-court judges could micromanage parental religious practices, lesbians, for instance, were denied custody and could not even associate with their partners. "Courts cannot police every situation," he says, and that means "generally allowing both parents to expose the child to their religious beliefs." When forced to, some state courts have struck down divorce decrees requiring a single religion for a child; others have upheld them. As Judge Jordan learned, attempting to balance one parent's religious freedom against the other parent's religious exceptionalism rarely works, because, as Joe Gitlin puts it, for most of us "there's always only one way to heaven, and it's mine." But either way, every lawyer I spoke to agreed that there are plenty of good ways to modify custody arrangements. Violating those arrangements on live television isn't one of them
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, March 4, 2010
What is a Covenant Marriage and Can I Get Out of One?
In Arizona, couples may elect to enter into a Covenant Marriage.
A.R.S. 25-901 states, "[p]ersons who have the legal right capacity to marry pursuant to this title may enter into a covenant marriage by declaring their intent to do so on their application for a license...and by complying with the requirements of this chapter."
The requirements set forth in the statute are that:
1) That the declaration of intent include the language, "[w]e solemnly declare that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live together as husband and wife for as long as they both live. We have chosen each other carefully and have received premarital counseling on the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage. We understand that a covenant marriage is for life. If we experience marital difficulties, we commit ourselves to take all reasonable efforts to preserver our marriage, including marital counseling. With full knowledge of what this commitment means, we do declare that our marriage will be bound by Arizona law on covenant marriages and we promise to love, honor and care for one another as husband and wife for the rest of our lives."
2) An affidavit by the parties that they have received premarital counseling from a member of the clergy or from a marriage counselor. Premarital counseling shall include a discussion of the seriousness of covenant marriage, communication of the fact that a covenant marriage is a commitment for life, a discussion of the obligation to seek marital counseling in times of marital difficulties and a discussion of the exclusive grounds for legally terminating a covenant marriage by dissolution of marriage or legal separation."
The ramification of entering into a covenant marriage is that you can only get divorced under certain circumstances.
These circumstances are set forth in A.R.S. 25-903.
They are:
1. The respondent spouse has committed adultery.
2. The respondent spouse has committed a felony and has been sentenced to death or imprisonment in any federal, state, county or municipal correctional facility.
3. The respondent spouse has abandoned the matrimonial domicile for at least one year before the petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage and refuses to return. A party may file a petition based on this ground by alleging that the respondent spouse has left the matrimonial domicile and is expected to remain absent for the required period. If the respondent spouse has not abandoned the matrimonial domicile for the required period at the time of the filing of the petition, the action shall not be dismissed for failure to state sufficient grounds and the action shall be stayed for the period of time remaining to meet the grounds based on abandonment, except that the court may enter and enforce temporary orders pursuant to section 25-315 during the time that the action is pending.
4. The respondent spouse has physically or sexually abused the spouse seeking the dissolution of marriage, a child, a relative of either spouse permanently living in the matrimonial domicile or has committed domestic violence as defined in section 13-3601 or emotional abuse.
5. The spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for at least two years before the petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage. A party may file a petition based on this ground by alleging that it is expected that the parties will be living separate and apart for the required period. If the parties have not been separated for the required period at the time of the filing of the petition, the action shall not be dismissed for failure to state sufficient grounds and the action shall be stayed for the period of time remaining to meet the grounds based on separation, except that the court may enter and enforce temporary orders pursuant to section 25-315 during the time that the action is pending.
6. The spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for at least one year from the date the decree of legal separation was entered.
7. The respondent spouse has habitually abused drugs or alcohol.
8. The husband and wife both agree to a dissolution of marriage.
If you are considering entering into a covenant marriage and what to talk about the ramifications first, or if you are desiring to get out of a covenant marriage, please feel free to contact me for a free consultation.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A.R.S. 25-901 states, "[p]ersons who have the legal right capacity to marry pursuant to this title may enter into a covenant marriage by declaring their intent to do so on their application for a license...and by complying with the requirements of this chapter."
The requirements set forth in the statute are that:
1) That the declaration of intent include the language, "[w]e solemnly declare that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman who agree to live together as husband and wife for as long as they both live. We have chosen each other carefully and have received premarital counseling on the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage. We understand that a covenant marriage is for life. If we experience marital difficulties, we commit ourselves to take all reasonable efforts to preserver our marriage, including marital counseling. With full knowledge of what this commitment means, we do declare that our marriage will be bound by Arizona law on covenant marriages and we promise to love, honor and care for one another as husband and wife for the rest of our lives."
2) An affidavit by the parties that they have received premarital counseling from a member of the clergy or from a marriage counselor. Premarital counseling shall include a discussion of the seriousness of covenant marriage, communication of the fact that a covenant marriage is a commitment for life, a discussion of the obligation to seek marital counseling in times of marital difficulties and a discussion of the exclusive grounds for legally terminating a covenant marriage by dissolution of marriage or legal separation."
The ramification of entering into a covenant marriage is that you can only get divorced under certain circumstances.
These circumstances are set forth in A.R.S. 25-903.
They are:
1. The respondent spouse has committed adultery.
2. The respondent spouse has committed a felony and has been sentenced to death or imprisonment in any federal, state, county or municipal correctional facility.
3. The respondent spouse has abandoned the matrimonial domicile for at least one year before the petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage and refuses to return. A party may file a petition based on this ground by alleging that the respondent spouse has left the matrimonial domicile and is expected to remain absent for the required period. If the respondent spouse has not abandoned the matrimonial domicile for the required period at the time of the filing of the petition, the action shall not be dismissed for failure to state sufficient grounds and the action shall be stayed for the period of time remaining to meet the grounds based on abandonment, except that the court may enter and enforce temporary orders pursuant to section 25-315 during the time that the action is pending.
4. The respondent spouse has physically or sexually abused the spouse seeking the dissolution of marriage, a child, a relative of either spouse permanently living in the matrimonial domicile or has committed domestic violence as defined in section 13-3601 or emotional abuse.
5. The spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for at least two years before the petitioner filed for dissolution of marriage. A party may file a petition based on this ground by alleging that it is expected that the parties will be living separate and apart for the required period. If the parties have not been separated for the required period at the time of the filing of the petition, the action shall not be dismissed for failure to state sufficient grounds and the action shall be stayed for the period of time remaining to meet the grounds based on separation, except that the court may enter and enforce temporary orders pursuant to section 25-315 during the time that the action is pending.
6. The spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for at least one year from the date the decree of legal separation was entered.
7. The respondent spouse has habitually abused drugs or alcohol.
8. The husband and wife both agree to a dissolution of marriage.
If you are considering entering into a covenant marriage and what to talk about the ramifications first, or if you are desiring to get out of a covenant marriage, please feel free to contact me for a free consultation.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Is There a Preference to Mothers in a Custody Case?
The short answer is No.
A.R.S. 25-403.01 states that, "[t]he court in determining custody shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex."
The sole factors that the court should consider in determining custody are set forth in A.R.S. 25-403. The factors are:
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody.
2. The wishes of the child as to the custodian.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent or parents, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
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. This paragraph does not apply if the court determines that a parent is acting in good faith to protect the child from witnessing an act of domestic violence or being a victim of domestic violence or child abuse.
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.
9. Whether a parent has complied with chapter 3, article 5 of this title (taking a parenting class).
10. Whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect under section 13-2907.02.
11. Whether there has been domestic violence or child abuse as defined in section 25-403.03.
I have found that the most heavily weighted factor is usually number 7, who has provided primary care of the child. Historically, when there has been a one income household, it has been the Father that has been working and the Mother staying home to raise the children. Because of this, a disproportionate amount of custody cases were determined in favor of the Mother.
However, as increasingly more and more households are dual income, this trend has started to change. When both parents have been working, the court normally finds that both parents have provided equal care to the children. As such, the other factors become more relevant to the decision.
In many cases, the Court has awarded joint legal and physical custody of the children to the parents. This is becoming more and more prevalent.
The key in any disputed custody case is having a skilled attorney be able to present your best case in regards to all of the eleven factors the Court examines.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A.R.S. 25-403.01 states that, "[t]he court in determining custody shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex."
The sole factors that the court should consider in determining custody are set forth in A.R.S. 25-403. The factors are:
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody.
2. The wishes of the child as to the custodian.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent or parents, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.
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. This paragraph does not apply if the court determines that a parent is acting in good faith to protect the child from witnessing an act of domestic violence or being a victim of domestic violence or child abuse.
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.
9. Whether a parent has complied with chapter 3, article 5 of this title (taking a parenting class).
10. Whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect under section 13-2907.02.
11. Whether there has been domestic violence or child abuse as defined in section 25-403.03.
I have found that the most heavily weighted factor is usually number 7, who has provided primary care of the child. Historically, when there has been a one income household, it has been the Father that has been working and the Mother staying home to raise the children. Because of this, a disproportionate amount of custody cases were determined in favor of the Mother.
However, as increasingly more and more households are dual income, this trend has started to change. When both parents have been working, the court normally finds that both parents have provided equal care to the children. As such, the other factors become more relevant to the decision.
In many cases, the Court has awarded joint legal and physical custody of the children to the parents. This is becoming more and more prevalent.
The key in any disputed custody case is having a skilled attorney be able to present your best case in regards to all of the eleven factors the Court examines.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Advantages of a Flat Fee Arrangment in a Divorce/Family Law Case
One of the typical complaints I here from clients is the fact that they get billed every time they call their attorney and that the opposing party is trying to drag out the litigation for the sole purpose of making the client incur additional and unnecessary attorney's fees.
In response to this feedback, the Firm has begun offering flat fees to its clients. There are many advantages to the flat fee approach.
First, the client knows with certainty how much their divorce/child support/custody matter is going to cost.
Second, they can communicate frequently with their attorney without having to worry about the cost of doing so.
Third, it serves as a strong deterrent to the opposing party and encourages them to try and swiftly and amicably resolve the litigation. The other party quickly realizes that he or she is the only one incurring the additional fees by their unnecessary filings or unreasonable positions.
Of course, there is one inherent risk to a client under a flat fee arrangement. It is possible that the client's fees could wind up less under an hourly rate arrangement if the matter is resolved early on. However, the client could end up saving thousands of dollars if the matter is litigated to the bitter end.
The flat fee that the Firm offers varies depending upon the potential issues in a client's case, and are determined after an initial consultation.
Since providing the flat fee option to clients a couple of months ago, the Firm has received very positive feedback on this affordable attorney's fee option and has retained several clients under this arrangement.
Overall, I believe that more and more individuals will see the value in flat fee attorney's fee arrangements for Arizona divorce and family law matters and take advantage of the piece of mind they provide.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
In response to this feedback, the Firm has begun offering flat fees to its clients. There are many advantages to the flat fee approach.
First, the client knows with certainty how much their divorce/child support/custody matter is going to cost.
Second, they can communicate frequently with their attorney without having to worry about the cost of doing so.
Third, it serves as a strong deterrent to the opposing party and encourages them to try and swiftly and amicably resolve the litigation. The other party quickly realizes that he or she is the only one incurring the additional fees by their unnecessary filings or unreasonable positions.
Of course, there is one inherent risk to a client under a flat fee arrangement. It is possible that the client's fees could wind up less under an hourly rate arrangement if the matter is resolved early on. However, the client could end up saving thousands of dollars if the matter is litigated to the bitter end.
The flat fee that the Firm offers varies depending upon the potential issues in a client's case, and are determined after an initial consultation.
Since providing the flat fee option to clients a couple of months ago, the Firm has received very positive feedback on this affordable attorney's fee option and has retained several clients under this arrangement.
Overall, I believe that more and more individuals will see the value in flat fee attorney's fee arrangements for Arizona divorce and family law matters and take advantage of the piece of mind they provide.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Can I Get an Award of Attorneys' Fees in My Family Law Matter?
The short answer is YES.
A.R.S. 25-324 states that the Court may award a party costs and expenses after considering the financial resources of the parties as well as the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the litigation.
Cost and expenses are defined as, "attorney fees, depositions costs and other reasonable expenses as the court finds necessary to the full and proper presentation of the action..."
Of course, the decision to award fees and costs is up to the discretion of the Judge. With each Judge having his or her own interpretation of the above referenced factors, the outcome of your request for fees and costs could easily vary depending upon the Judge assigned to your case.
In many divorce cases, one spouse requests that the other pay his or her attorneys' fees during the pendency of the action, instead of just at the end of the litigation. The process to request this is thru a Motion for Temporary Orders. This is typical when one party is not working and has been supported by the other spouse during the marriage, and that spouse has now cut them off. I have requested and have received temporary orders requiring a spouse to pay $10,000.00 towards my client's attorney's fees so that she may afford representation during her divorce.
Overall, given the wide latitude in interpreting the statue, I would never count on the Court awarding attorney's fees and costs. Wherefore, I always counsel my clients to be prepared to have to pay all of their own fees and costs.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A.R.S. 25-324 states that the Court may award a party costs and expenses after considering the financial resources of the parties as well as the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the litigation.
Cost and expenses are defined as, "attorney fees, depositions costs and other reasonable expenses as the court finds necessary to the full and proper presentation of the action..."
Of course, the decision to award fees and costs is up to the discretion of the Judge. With each Judge having his or her own interpretation of the above referenced factors, the outcome of your request for fees and costs could easily vary depending upon the Judge assigned to your case.
In many divorce cases, one spouse requests that the other pay his or her attorneys' fees during the pendency of the action, instead of just at the end of the litigation. The process to request this is thru a Motion for Temporary Orders. This is typical when one party is not working and has been supported by the other spouse during the marriage, and that spouse has now cut them off. I have requested and have received temporary orders requiring a spouse to pay $10,000.00 towards my client's attorney's fees so that she may afford representation during her divorce.
Overall, given the wide latitude in interpreting the statue, I would never count on the Court awarding attorney's fees and costs. Wherefore, I always counsel my clients to be prepared to have to pay all of their own fees and costs.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Divorce/Custody Implications of Facebook, MySpace and Texting
Technology has increasingly brought us more and more ways to express ourselves and communicate. However, these new forms of communication differ from the old way of verbal conversations in that there is a record forever of what you have posted or texted.
Increasingly I have had divorce and custody cases where at least one party presents text messages or Facebook and MySpace postings as evidence to support their allegations. This can include one party boasting about drug or alcohol abuse to making statements about how they will do anything to screw over the other party.
Parties usually say they were just joking and/or making things up, but rarely is that argument bought by a Judge. The usual result is that the party loses all credibility in the case.
Although these new tools of communication are wonderful for allowing us to stay in touch, you need to ask yourself before you post or text something whether you would be comfortable with a Judge or potential future employer reading it. If not, I would think twice before communicating in such a fashion.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Increasingly I have had divorce and custody cases where at least one party presents text messages or Facebook and MySpace postings as evidence to support their allegations. This can include one party boasting about drug or alcohol abuse to making statements about how they will do anything to screw over the other party.
Parties usually say they were just joking and/or making things up, but rarely is that argument bought by a Judge. The usual result is that the party loses all credibility in the case.
Although these new tools of communication are wonderful for allowing us to stay in touch, you need to ask yourself before you post or text something whether you would be comfortable with a Judge or potential future employer reading it. If not, I would think twice before communicating in such a fashion.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Am I Entitled to Spousal Maintenance?
In Arizona divorce cases, Judges many times will award one party spousal maintenance.
A.R.S. 25-319 sets forth the computation factors that a Judge may consider in deciding whether to award spousal maintenance. The Judge may award spousal maintenance If the spouse seeking maintenance:
1. Lacks sufficient property, including property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for that spouse's reasonable needs;
2. Is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose age or condition is such that the custodian should not be required to seek employment outside the home or lacks earning ability in the labor market adequate to be self-sufficient;
3. Contributed to the educational opportunities of the other spouse; and
4. Had a marriage of long duration and is of an age that may preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to be self-sufficient.
Unlike child support, there is no set formula for determining the amount and duration of spousal maintenance. Instead the amount and duration is determined by considering the following factors:
1. The standard of living established during the marriage;
2. The duration of the marriage;
3. The age, employment history, earning ability and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;
4. The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse's needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;
5. The comparative financial resources of the spouses, including their comparative earning abilities in the labor market;
6. The contribution of the spouse seeking maintenance to the earning ability of the other spouse;
7. The extent to which the spouse seeking maintenance has reduced that spouse's income or career opportunities for the benefit of the other spouse;
8. The ability of both parties after the dissolution to contribute to the future educational costs of their mutual children;
9. The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to that spouse, and that spouse's ability to meet that spouse's own needs independently;
10. The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment and whether such education or training is readily available;
11. Excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common;
12. The cost for the spouse who is seeking maintenance to obtain health insurance and the reduction in the cost of health insurance for the spouse from whom maintenance is sought if the spouse from whom maintenance is sought is able to convert family health insurance to employee health insurance after the marriage is dissolved; and
13. All actual damages and judgments from conduct that results in criminal conviction of either spouse in which the other spouse or child was the victim.
If you have questions regarding spousal maintenance issues or other family law related matters please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A.R.S. 25-319 sets forth the computation factors that a Judge may consider in deciding whether to award spousal maintenance. The Judge may award spousal maintenance If the spouse seeking maintenance:
1. Lacks sufficient property, including property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for that spouse's reasonable needs;
2. Is unable to be self-sufficient through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose age or condition is such that the custodian should not be required to seek employment outside the home or lacks earning ability in the labor market adequate to be self-sufficient;
3. Contributed to the educational opportunities of the other spouse; and
4. Had a marriage of long duration and is of an age that may preclude the possibility of gaining employment adequate to be self-sufficient.
Unlike child support, there is no set formula for determining the amount and duration of spousal maintenance. Instead the amount and duration is determined by considering the following factors:
1. The standard of living established during the marriage;
2. The duration of the marriage;
3. The age, employment history, earning ability and physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;
4. The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet that spouse's needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;
5. The comparative financial resources of the spouses, including their comparative earning abilities in the labor market;
6. The contribution of the spouse seeking maintenance to the earning ability of the other spouse;
7. The extent to which the spouse seeking maintenance has reduced that spouse's income or career opportunities for the benefit of the other spouse;
8. The ability of both parties after the dissolution to contribute to the future educational costs of their mutual children;
9. The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to that spouse, and that spouse's ability to meet that spouse's own needs independently;
10. The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment and whether such education or training is readily available;
11. Excessive or abnormal expenditures, destruction, concealment or fraudulent disposition of community, joint tenancy and other property held in common;
12. The cost for the spouse who is seeking maintenance to obtain health insurance and the reduction in the cost of health insurance for the spouse from whom maintenance is sought if the spouse from whom maintenance is sought is able to convert family health insurance to employee health insurance after the marriage is dissolved; and
13. All actual damages and judgments from conduct that results in criminal conviction of either spouse in which the other spouse or child was the victim.
If you have questions regarding spousal maintenance issues or other family law related matters please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Friday, January 22, 2010
Orders of Protection
In many cases that I handle, an Order of Protection is sought by one of the parties. In most cases, this is a legitimate request based upon a party's concern for their safety or the safety of their children. However, there are many occasions when a party acquires an Order of Protection as a tool to gain exclusive use of a marital residence and to cut off the other parent from his or her children.
A.R.S. 13-3602 sets forth the procedure and elements necessary to obtain an Order of Protection. Basically, the main element required to obtain an Order of Protection is that one party has or there is reasonable cause to believe will commit an act of domestic violence.
To obtain an Order of Protection, a party may go to any court (Justice Court, Superior Court, Municipal Court) and appear before a Judge that is assigned that day to hear these types of matter. If sufficient cause is demonstrated to the Judge, he or she will issue the Order of Protection. After the Order of Protection is issued, it must be served on the other party.
Because the other party is not present to defend himself at the initial acquiring of the Order of Protection, it is very easy for the asking party to obtain one. This is why many people utilize this procedure to kick a party out of the house and to keep him or her away from the children.
After being served with the Order of Protection, a party may request a hearing. By law, the hearing must be scheduled within ten days of the request. At this hearing, the party who obtained the Order of Protection has the burden of proof in establishing more likely than not that the events that were alleged in fact took place.
In my experience, the truth has always prevailed at these Order of Protection hearings. By that I mean that every Order of Protection I have ever sought on behalf of a client has been upheld after hearing. Likewise, every Order of Protection I have contested on behalf of a wrongly accused client has been quashed.
If an Order of Protection is upheld against a party than almost always that party will lose joint legal custody of their children and many times be subject to supervised visitation time with them. Additionally, the Order of Protection can affect your ability to gain certain types of employment as it will show up on a background check.
Recently, in a case in which I obtained an Order of Protection for a client which was upheld after hearing, the other party complained that offers he had for multiple six figure income jobs were withdrawn because the background check showed the Order of Protection.
Orders of Protection are a valuable tool in protecting the safety of victims of domestic violence. However, the misuse of obtaining them for ulterior purposes in family law litigation is a disturbing trend.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A.R.S. 13-3602 sets forth the procedure and elements necessary to obtain an Order of Protection. Basically, the main element required to obtain an Order of Protection is that one party has or there is reasonable cause to believe will commit an act of domestic violence.
To obtain an Order of Protection, a party may go to any court (Justice Court, Superior Court, Municipal Court) and appear before a Judge that is assigned that day to hear these types of matter. If sufficient cause is demonstrated to the Judge, he or she will issue the Order of Protection. After the Order of Protection is issued, it must be served on the other party.
Because the other party is not present to defend himself at the initial acquiring of the Order of Protection, it is very easy for the asking party to obtain one. This is why many people utilize this procedure to kick a party out of the house and to keep him or her away from the children.
After being served with the Order of Protection, a party may request a hearing. By law, the hearing must be scheduled within ten days of the request. At this hearing, the party who obtained the Order of Protection has the burden of proof in establishing more likely than not that the events that were alleged in fact took place.
In my experience, the truth has always prevailed at these Order of Protection hearings. By that I mean that every Order of Protection I have ever sought on behalf of a client has been upheld after hearing. Likewise, every Order of Protection I have contested on behalf of a wrongly accused client has been quashed.
If an Order of Protection is upheld against a party than almost always that party will lose joint legal custody of their children and many times be subject to supervised visitation time with them. Additionally, the Order of Protection can affect your ability to gain certain types of employment as it will show up on a background check.
Recently, in a case in which I obtained an Order of Protection for a client which was upheld after hearing, the other party complained that offers he had for multiple six figure income jobs were withdrawn because the background check showed the Order of Protection.
Orders of Protection are a valuable tool in protecting the safety of victims of domestic violence. However, the misuse of obtaining them for ulterior purposes in family law litigation is a disturbing trend.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
What happens to my negative equity home in a divorce?
Prior to the housing crash, a couples' marital residence was their biggest asset to be split during a divorce. Typically, one spouse would refinance the property in order to buy out the other spouse's interest in the property as well as to relieve that spouse of any financial obligation for the mortgage. Alternatively, the parties could list the house for sale and split the proceeds. Times have changed.
The crash of the housing market has dramatically affected the disposition of the marital residence thru a divorce proceeding. Instead of being an asset, most of my client's homes are now significant debts. This creates enormous problems in deciding what to do with the property in a divorce proceeding.
Because of the negative equity in most of my client's homes, the option of refinancing the property or selling it is no longer available (as most lenders require 20% equity in the property). Wherefore, there are typically only a couple of options reaming. They are: 1) attempting a short sale; 2) a deed in lieu of foreclosure; 3) foreclosure; 4) attempting a loan assumption; and 5) not requiring the spouse who will be awarded the house to take you off the loan in the near future.
The first three options mentioned will all negatively affect your credit, and as such I always counsel against choosing one of those options.
Many banks, such as Chase, have a loan assumption process that an individual going thru a divorce can apply for, by which the bank will take the other spouse off of liability for the mortgage. This process will take at least 45 days and there is no guarantee that the bank will approve it. However, when available, this is usually the best option.
The last option is to allow the person being awarded the house to not have to get their spouse off of the mortgage via a loan assumption or traditional refinance, until such time as there is adequate equity to do so. The pitfalls of this option for the spouse who is not awarded the home is that they are still financially responsible for the mortgage should a default occur down the road, and the monthly mortgage payment will show up as a liability on their credit report. This liability remaining on their credit report will negatively affecting their ability to qualify for financing, should they attempt to buy another house. I always counsel my clients to not accept this arrangement, unless of course they are the party to be awarded the property.
Hopefully, we have hit bottom in the residential home market and will be able to see a rise in the price of properties in the near future. Until then, people will continue to face difficult choices in the disposition of their marital residence while going thru a divorce.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
www.singerpistiner.com
jp@singerpistiner.com
The crash of the housing market has dramatically affected the disposition of the marital residence thru a divorce proceeding. Instead of being an asset, most of my client's homes are now significant debts. This creates enormous problems in deciding what to do with the property in a divorce proceeding.
Because of the negative equity in most of my client's homes, the option of refinancing the property or selling it is no longer available (as most lenders require 20% equity in the property). Wherefore, there are typically only a couple of options reaming. They are: 1) attempting a short sale; 2) a deed in lieu of foreclosure; 3) foreclosure; 4) attempting a loan assumption; and 5) not requiring the spouse who will be awarded the house to take you off the loan in the near future.
The first three options mentioned will all negatively affect your credit, and as such I always counsel against choosing one of those options.
Many banks, such as Chase, have a loan assumption process that an individual going thru a divorce can apply for, by which the bank will take the other spouse off of liability for the mortgage. This process will take at least 45 days and there is no guarantee that the bank will approve it. However, when available, this is usually the best option.
The last option is to allow the person being awarded the house to not have to get their spouse off of the mortgage via a loan assumption or traditional refinance, until such time as there is adequate equity to do so. The pitfalls of this option for the spouse who is not awarded the home is that they are still financially responsible for the mortgage should a default occur down the road, and the monthly mortgage payment will show up as a liability on their credit report. This liability remaining on their credit report will negatively affecting their ability to qualify for financing, should they attempt to buy another house. I always counsel my clients to not accept this arrangement, unless of course they are the party to be awarded the property.
Hopefully, we have hit bottom in the residential home market and will be able to see a rise in the price of properties in the near future. Until then, people will continue to face difficult choices in the disposition of their marital residence while going thru a divorce.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
www.singerpistiner.com
jp@singerpistiner.com
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Drug and Alchohol Issues relating to Custody of Children
In many Arizona child custody and divorce cases that I handle, there are allegations made against one parent of drug and alcohol abuse. Typically, when an allegation is made, the Judge is going to order the suspected party to immediately submit to a hair follicle or urinalysis test. The initial cost is incurred by the suspected party, but if the test comes up negative than the alleging party will have to reimburse the other parent for the cost.
If the drug test comes back positive, it almost always will result in that parent losing custody of their child(ren) and having his/her parenting time be supervised. Additionally, that parent will be subject to random drug testing until such time as he/she goes six months without having a positive result from a test.
A.R.S. 25-403 states that in determining custody the Court shall consider what is in the best interest of the child(ren). One of the factors is the mental and physical health of the individual, of which drug/alcohol abuse will play a factor.
Additonally, A.R.S. 25-403.04 states that if a parent has been convicted of a drug offense within the last 12 months that it is presumed that sole or joint custody should not be granted to that parent.
Lastly, A.R.S. 25-410(B) states that the Court may order supervised visitation if it finds that a child's physical health would be endangered by having unsupervised parenting time with a parent.
Clearly, if there was ever an impetus to seek help for drug and alcohol abuse, the prospect of losing custody of your children and having your time with them be supervised should provide such impetus. Sadly however, this has not been my experience.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
If the drug test comes back positive, it almost always will result in that parent losing custody of their child(ren) and having his/her parenting time be supervised. Additionally, that parent will be subject to random drug testing until such time as he/she goes six months without having a positive result from a test.
A.R.S. 25-403 states that in determining custody the Court shall consider what is in the best interest of the child(ren). One of the factors is the mental and physical health of the individual, of which drug/alcohol abuse will play a factor.
Additonally, A.R.S. 25-403.04 states that if a parent has been convicted of a drug offense within the last 12 months that it is presumed that sole or joint custody should not be granted to that parent.
Lastly, A.R.S. 25-410(B) states that the Court may order supervised visitation if it finds that a child's physical health would be endangered by having unsupervised parenting time with a parent.
Clearly, if there was ever an impetus to seek help for drug and alcohol abuse, the prospect of losing custody of your children and having your time with them be supervised should provide such impetus. Sadly however, this has not been my experience.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)