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
Monday, July 26, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)