Minnesota Divorce & Family Law Blog : Minneapolis Divorce Attorney & Lawyer : Minnesota Family Law Firm : Brown Law Offices : St. Paul, Twin Cities MN Custody Child Support

Acts of domestic abuse that occur during a marriage can have a substantial impact on custody proceedings.  A finding of domestic abuse can prohibit parties from sharing joint physical custody of their children.

Minnesota's Domestic Abuse Act is contained within Minnesota Statutes Section 518B. It defines domestic abuse as "physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of imminent physical harm between family or household members" or "criminal sexual conduct committed against the family or household member by an adult family or household member." The physical acts described above are relatively straightforward.  Difficulties arise, however, when threats of physical harm are not followed with an act resulting in physical harm.  The question for the Court involves whether a threat results in fear of harm and whether that fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

A litigant bringing an act of domestic abuse to the attention of the court is ultimately seeking an Order for Protection. Such an Order prohibits contact by the offending party upon the victim, and often denies the perpetrator access to the victim's residence and place of employment.

In order to secure an Order for Protection, the victim will first petition the court without notice to the perpetrator.  The court must accept as true the allegations contained within the petition.  If these allegations rise to the level of domestic abuse as defined by law, the court will enter a temporary order.  Then, the perpetrator is served with notice of the entry of the order.  At that point, the perpetrator may contest the issuance of the order by participating in an evidentiary hearing (a mini trial) on the issues.

If an Order for Protection is entered, criminal penalties are attached to a violation of the order.  As an additional consequence, if the situation involves acts of domestic abuse among a husband and wife who are dissolving their marriage, it is rather unlikely the court will consider an award of joint physical custody of the children of the parties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are two types of custody in Minnesota: physical and legal. A parent may receive sole or joint custody. A non-custodial parent will likely receive an award of parenting time. The "best interests of the child" governs these issues.

In examining the best interests of a child, the Court will examine 13 criteria, including:

• The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody;
• The reasonable preference of the child as to custody, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference;
• The child's primary caretaker;
• The intimacy of the relationship between each parent and the child;
• The interaction and interrelationship of the child with a parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
• The child's adjustment to home, school, and community;
• The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
• The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home;
• The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; except that a disability of a proposed custodian or the child shall not be determinative of the custody of the child, unless the proposed custody arrangement is not in the best interest of the child;
• The capacity and disposition of the parties to give the child love, affection, and guidance, and to continue educating and raising the child in the child's culture and religion or creed, if any;
• The child's cultural background;
• The effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if related to domestic abuse that has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual, whether or not the individual alleged to have committed domestic abuse is or ever was a family or household member of the parent; and
• The disposition of each parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the other parent with the child.

Legal custody grants a parent the right to have a role in the educational, medical and religious decisions made on behalf of a child. There is a presumption in Minnesota that parents should be granted joint legal custody. This presumption may be overcome, however, by demonstrating that such an award does not serve the best interests of a child (if, for example, a parent experiences significant mental illness or has played no role in the life of a child).

Physical custody refers to the day to day physical location of children. The presumption in Minnesota is that one parent should have sole physical custody and the other should be awarded an appropriate amount of parenting time with the children. This presumption may be overcome, however, by demonstrating that such an award does not serve the best interests of a child - usually by showing that the parents have each played a significant role in a child's upbringing, get along relatively well, communicate respectfully with one another, have no history of domestic abuse and intend to remain living in close proximity (within the same school district) of one another. Some judges are much more open to an award of joint physical custody than others.

If one parent is awarded sole physical custody of a child, the other will typically receive an award of parenting time. Very often, such an award involves spending time with the children every-other weekend, one or two evenings per week, half of all holidays and non-school days during the academic year, and a number of weeks of uninterrupted vacation time during the summer months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an unpublished decision entitled In re the Matter and Welfare of the Child of  BTN and AVD, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court order terminating the parental rights of the child's parents. Judge Bjorkman wrote without dissent.

BTN and AVD are the parents of DD, who was born on February 6, 2007. One week later, Stearns County Human Services filed a petition alleging that DD was a child in need of protection or services because the parent's first child, AD, experienced egregious harm while in their care, resulting in his death. After an emergency protective-care hearing, DD was placed in foster care. The county subsequently determined that AD had experienced egregious harm while in the care of BTN. and AVD. On that basis, the county petitioned to terminate the parental rights of DD's mother and father.

AD was nine months old when he was taken to the emergency room. BTN and AVD told the responders that AD had been standing in front of the couch and had suddenly arched his back and fallen backward onto the carpeted floor.  AD was nonresponsive, and the emergency room doctor who examined him concluded that he had suffered severe head trauma.  The doctor ordered a CT scan of AD’s head, which revealed a subdural hematoma.  AD died during brain surgery.  An autopsy was performed, and the medical examiner concluded that AD’s death was a homicide, caused by blunt trauma to the head, which resulted in a skull fracture and a subdural hematoma.

In orders dated November 29, 2007, the district court terminated the parental rights of BTN and AVD based on its determination that a child (not DD, but AD) had experienced egregious harm in their care and that it was in DD’s best interests for both parents’ parental rights to be terminated.

Parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons. The court must exercise great caution in termination proceedings, finding such action proper only when the evidence clearly mandates such a result. A district court may terminate parental rights based on a determination:

that a child has experienced egregious harm in the parent’s care which is of a nature, duration, or chronicity that indicates a lack of regard for the child’s well-being, such that a reasonable person would believe it contrary to the best interest of the child or of any child to be in the parent’s care. 

Egregious harm means the infliction of bodily harm to a child or neglect of a child which demonstrates a grossly inadequate ability to provide minimally adequate parental care. To terminate the rights of a parent who has not personally inflicted egregious harm on a child, a court must find that the parent either knew or should have known that the child had experienced egregious harm.

On appeal, the parents contended that contend that the district court’s findings were insufficient to meet the "knowledge" standard - and the court of appeals agreed:

The district court found that AD’s fatal injuries were non-accidental and constitute egregious harm. The district court further found that because BTN and AVD were AD’s only caretakers, at least one of them must have caused the egregious harm and that a non-perpetrating parent would have reasonably known of the harm because of AD’s 'noticeable symptoms.' But the finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have observed symptoms is, at most, a finding that the parent knew or should have known that AD was injured. It is not a finding that a non-perpetrating parent would have been reasonably aware that AD had sustained egregious harm. The district court did not determine which parent caused the harm, identify the 'noticeable symptoms,' or find that the symptoms would have reasonably led a non-perpetrating parent to know that AD’s injury was the result of 'some conduct' satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition.

Judge Bjorkman concluded:

Because Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(6), requires a finding that the non-perpetrating parent not only knew of an injury but also knew or should have known that the injury was sustained 'as a result of some conduct satisfying the ‘egregious harm’ definition,' the district court’s findings with respect to a non-perpetrating parent’s knowledge are insufficient.

The court was essentially saying that a non-perpetrating parent cannot be held responsible for egregious harm to a child unless the parent, because of actual or reasonable knowledge, had the opportunity to respond to or protect against the harm. While the district court found that each party gained knowledge of the actions of the other after the suit was initiated by the county, knowledge acquired after the fact does not meet the relevant standard to terminate parental rights.

As noted above, parent rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons under Minnesota law. This case is a prime example of just how far some judges are willing to go to allow a parent to continue to care for their child. Like you, I am shaking my head in disgust. These two parents have seemingly gotten away with the murder of a child based on the "I know nothing" defense, pointing at each other. Bad enough that they are allowed to even conceive another victim...I mean, child. Now, they get to keep it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Halbrooks has been busy at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She recently issued three dissolution decisions, none of which were published. Two cases involved property allocation issues, one involved a joint physical custody award and two involved child support calculations:

• Popel v. Popel: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody to the parties but remanded for a recalculation of child support and reallocation of non-marital interests.
• Blaeser v. Fiscus: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify child support following the emancipation of appellant's oldest child. 
• Murphy v. Murphy: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in the district court's unequal allocation of marital property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Ohio Divorce Attorneys with Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues author the popular Ohio Divorce & Family Law Blog. They recently posted a useful article entitled "What is Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome?"

Attorney Robert Mues notes that there are a number of different factors and circumstances that have an effect on the determination of custody. As in Ohio, Minnesota judges must consider a number of relevant factors when determining the best interest of a child. One of those factors includes whether either parent has continuously and willfully denied the other parent’s right to parenting time or visitation as ordered by a court.

While visitation denials may be relatively easy to prove in court, that alone doesn’t amount to parental alienation. It is not uncommon for some amount of alienation to occur when parents first separate. Usually, the alienation subsides after the parents’ transition through the separation and move on with their lives. In some cases it doesn’t, and instead it continues and escalates to what has become referred to as “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”

This disorder was first identified by Richard A. Gardner, a forensic psychiatrist in the mid-1980s, who defines it as:

Mues accurately points out that there are three stages of parental alienation syndrome. These stages include mild, moderate and severe. In a mild case there are naive alienators and the perpetrator can be educated and changed. However, in a severe case the perpetrator is often delusional and their entire being is focused on destroying the other parent’s relationship with the child. Experts must be brought in to prove the alienation and, more importantly, to assist the child in gaining an accurate perspective on things.

Having handled many custody disputes involving parental alienation syndrome, I can honestly say that they are, by far, the most difficult and raw of all family cases. At the end of the day, the parent who engages in parental alienation behaviors is committing an act of abuse upon a child. The caselaw in Minnesota on this issue is rather undeveloped. But, like so many psychological theories and concepts, the public, and the courts, are becoming much more familiar with the syndrome and consequence of parental alienation.

There are some experts and jurists who have criticized the concept of parental alienation syndrome, calling it "inadmissible junk science." This author, however, questions how many times they've actually experienced and dealt with the conduct described by Gardner. Parental alienation syndrome is very real (no matter what you call it) and is an example of a parenting at its lowest and most neglectful level.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently rendered three family law decisions, none of which warranted publication. One case involved child support issues, another custody and child support and the third property valuation and division:

• Donovan v. Donovan: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Shumaker held that a child support bonus provision was unambiguous and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to child support cases.
• Adler v. Espinosa: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Lansing opined that the district court appropriately determined physical custody and child support obligation.
• McCormick v. McCormick: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in district court's valuation of real estate and denial of fee award, but reversed district court's award of 100% of the marital equity in the homestead to wife.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've posted a number of entries concerning the benefits of settling a divorce as opposed to litigation. Even if you need to litigate, more than 95% of cases will settle before trial.

The following settlement checklist will come in handy as you attempt to figure out if you've got all of your bases covered:

1. Legal Custody: Joint or sole legal custody?
2. Physical Custody: Joint or sole physical custody?
3. Routine Access Schedule: Where will the children be on a given day?
4. Vacation Access Schedule: How many weeks of uninterrupted vacation time with the children?
5. Holiday Access Schedule: Who do the children celebrate with in a given year?
6. School-Year Breaks: Where will the children spend spring break or President's Day, for example?
7. Telephone Contact: What are the rules concerning communication with the children by phone?
8. Transportation: Who will transport the children for parenting time exchanges?
9. Basic Child Support: What is the amount of guideline support to be paid?
10. Medical/Dental Child Support: Who will insure the children and how will uninsured costs be allocated?
11. Child Care Support: How much will each parent pay for daycare?
12. Security for Support: Should one or both parents secure life insurance, naming the other as beneficiary for the benefit of the children?
13. Income Tax Exemptions: Who claims the children on their income taxes?
14. Spousal Maintenance/Alimony: How much and for how long?
15. Medical Insurance: Will each party cover their own?
16. Marital Property: What is a fair and equitable way to value and divide marital property?
17. Non-Marital Property: Does the holder of a non-marital interest retain that interest?
18. Pre-Separation Debts: How is the marital debt divided?
19. Post-Separation Debts: How are debts accrued after separation divided?
20. Fees and Costs: Will one party pay, or each responsible for their own attorney fees and costs?
21. Name Change: Does either spouse wish to change their name?
22. Ongoing Conflicts: Will the parties agree to mediate or use a parenting time consultant if future problems arise?
23. Documents: Do each agree to execute all paperwork necessary to transfer property interests?
24. Non-Disclosure: Does the court retain the ability to re-open the case if it is revealed that one party has hidden assets from the other?

Naturally, there are many other issues that will need to be addressed, but the 24 items listed above will give you a general framework for discussion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you and your spouse cannot reach agreement on the legal and physical custody of your child, your matter is probably headed for trial. The court will be left to determine what is in the "best interests" of your child through the use of a custody evaluation and report. About 95% of the time, the court will adopt the evaluator's recommendations - unless you have a strong advocate who knows how to challenge their conclusions.

Here are a few ways to discredit the custody evaluator at trial:

1. Bias. In personal injury cases, the insurance company will hire a doctor to examine the injured. Insurers pay thousands of dollars (now you know where your premiums go) to certain doctors who are prone to rendering an opinion favorable to the insurance company. These "independent" experts are often discredited by the plaintiff's lawyer bringing out the hundreds of prior opinions these physicians have rendered against injury victims. The same holds true in family court. Most custody evaluators have years of experience and have rendered hundreds of opinions. If there is consistency in those opinions, they carry a bias. Certain experts are prone to rendering certain opinions. Make the court aware of the bias of the evaluator and the recommendations may be discredited.
2. Diligence. We've cross-examined custody evaluators who have spent less than an hour in the presence of our client and the children that are the subject of the action. How much can anyone learn about a familial situation in 60 minutes of observation. What if the kids were having a tough day? What if the parent is nervous about the scrutiny of the evaluator? What if the dog won't stop barking? Think of it as a movie. If someone stopped "Titanic" before the ice berg and never watched the ending, they'd think everyone arrived safely in New York and wouldn't know the whole story. Evaluators are busy people. That haste can be taken advantage of.
3. Qualifications. Just who is the evaluator in your case? Do they have Ph.D.? How many evaluations have they conducted? Who are they employed by? What is their degree in? Have they been subject to an action for malpractice or ethics complaints? Disciplined by a professional board? Are they a licensed psychologist? All of these questions go to the foundation of the expert's opinions. Get them disqualified as an expert and the court cannot rely on their recommendations.

These same techniques can be used to discredit other court-appointed custody experts, such as a Guardian Ad Litem. No kidding - we had case in which the adverse Guardian had a degree in art history and failed to spend a single moment with our client in the presence of our client with the children (despite a statutory requirement that she meet with the parent in the presence of the children in the relevant home). We attacked her opinions on all three of the grounds referenced above.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When the dust settles from your divorce, you may find new problems on the horizon. As lawyers, we work very hard to draft a parenting time schedule that is concrete and detailed to avoid any ambiguity or need for interpretation. Inevitably, however, parenting conflicts arise. Enter the parenting consultant (or parenting time expeditor) if you and your ex can't resolve your dispute.

A parenting consultant is part mediator and part arbitrator. They can listen to parents and facilitate discussion, but also possess decision-making authority. Most are experienced family practitioners or child psychologists who work primarily in the area of parenting dispute resolution.

Parenting consultants offer the following benefits:

• Good decisions;
• Fast decisions; and
• Cheap decisions.

Most parties agree to employ a parenting consultant as part of their divorce decree and appreciate the ability to turn to someone with decision-making power with a simple phone call (try doing that with a judge) in the absence of ongoing legal fees. Most agree that the decision of the consultant is binding and may only be modified with an appeal to the court within 14 days from the decision. Parties typically split the cost of the consultant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minnesota Judicial Branch has published an exceptional brochure entitled "From the Judges of Family Court: What to Expect...Divorce in Minnesota." In reviewing, it appears to serve as a "reality check" for the litigants. Much of it I endorse. Here is some of what the Court has to say:

A divorce can be a painful and difficult experience, but if you understand the functions and limitations of the legal system, the process becomes less frustrating. It is our hope, as Judges of Family Court, that this pamphlet will give you a better understanding of the process, and help you get through your divorce with realistic ideas and goals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Depending upon the facts and legal issues involved in your divorce, a number of experts may play a role in your case, including a home appraiser, actuary, custody evaluator, business appraiser and vocational assessor.

The most common expert we employ is a home appraiser. In most cases the most valuable asset for division is the marital homestead. If one party elects to remain in the homestead we must calculate the equity in the house to determine the value of the property settlement. Naturally, the first step to establishing equity involves the determination of the market value of the property.

A typical homestead appraisal costs around $350. They take approximately one (1) week to complete. Many clients ask if a realtor’s market analysis can substitute for an appraisal. If the parties agree, a market analysis is sufficient. However, a realtor’s market analysis does not hold the same evidentiary weight as a certified real estate appraisal. For that reason, the appraisal is usually preferred.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our attorneys were recently involved in a very contentious family law situation involving a request for grandparenting time. Our firm represented the paternal grandparents of two children, ages 9 and 5. The mother and father of these two boys both contested the request of the grandparents for a court order that would compel grandparent visitation.

Our argument to the court was that the grandparents had “stepped into the shoes” of the father, who was an admitted alcoholic. Despite the fact that the grandparents had spent substantial amounts of time with their grandkids, mom and dad disputed their continued involvement in the lives of the children and wanted all time spent with the grandparents to be supervised.

Our clients were awarded one full weekend a month with the grandkids and additional time to take their grandchildren on vacation. None of the time was required to be supervised. This award was quite substantial, given the fact that most non-custodial parents are typically ordered to receive two weekends per month of parenting time, along with one weekday evening. The court clearly recognized that the stability of the children was critical in this case and that this ongoing relationship served their best interests.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Depending upon your point of view, you may or may not appreciate the fact that Minnesota law contains a presumption of sole physical custody. So many potential clients ask about that. I don't believe it is a question of whether the standard will change, but when the standard will change – based upon recent legislative activity and the progressive approaches that have been taken at the Hennepin County Family Justice Center in Minneapolis.

Fellow Minnesota divorce blogger Gerald O. Williams has published a nice article about the status of a bill in the 2008 Minnesota Legislature that relates to a modification of the sole physical custody presumption to a presumption of joint physical custody in divorce cases. The legislature has opted to refer the matter for a study.

This is certainly not the first time the legislature has looked at the issue. Part of the recent child-support reforms that were discarded was a new presumption of joint physical custody. It is evident that there are many, both in the public at large, and in the legislature, who believe it is time for a shift in thinking on this issue.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A host of implications follow the issuance of an Order for Protection in Minnesota when a marital dissolution action is pending or will be filed.

Marriage dissolution petition. A petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation must allege whether an OFP that governs the parties or a party and a minor child of the parties is in effect and, if so, the district court or similar jurisdiction in which it was entered.

Custody disputes. In a proceeding where two or more parties seek custody of a child, the court must consider and evaluate all relevant factors in determining the best interests of the child. One of the relevant factors set forth in Minnesota law is the effect on the child of the actions of abuse that has occurred between the parents or the parties. When joint legal or physical custody is contemplated, the court must consider whether domestic abuse has occurred between the parents. If domestic abuse has occurred between the parents, the court must apply a rebuttable presumption that joint legal or physical custody is not in the best interests of the child.

Parenting plan. Upon the request of both parents, a parenting plan may be created in lieu of an order for child custody. A parenting plan must include a schedule of time each parent spends with the child, a designation of decision-making responsibilities, and a method of dispute resolution. The court may not require a parenting plan that provides for joint legal custody or the use of dispute resolution processes (other than the judicial process) if the court finds that either parent has engaged in acts of domestic abuse or child abuse. In determining custody, a court must consider a finding under the Domestic Abuse Act or under a similar law of another state that domestic abuse has occurred between the parties.

Parenting time. Upon the request of either parent, the court must grant parenting time on behalf of the child and parent to enable them to maintain a parent-child relationship that will be in the best interests of the child. If the court finds, however, after a hearing, that parenting time is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development, the court must restrict parenting time and may deny parenting time entirely, if the circumstances warrant. If a parent requests supervised parenting time and an OFP is in effect, the judge or judicial officer must consider the OFP in making a decision regarding parenting time.

Modification of parenting time. If a parent specifically alleges that parenting time places the parent or child in danger of harm, the court must hold a hearing at the earliest possible time to determine the need to modify the order granting parenting time. The court must modify an order granting or denying parenting time whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child. Parenting time may not be restricted unless the parenting time is likely to endanger the child’s physical or emotional health or impair the child’s emotional development or the parent has chronically and unreasonably failed to comply with court-ordered parenting time.

Additional parenting time to provide child care. The court may allow additional parenting time to provide child care while the other parent is working, subject to reasonableness and the best interests of the child. In making this determination, the court must consider whether domestic abuse has occurred between the parties.

Move to another state. If a parenting-time order is in effect, the court must look at the effect of domestic abuse on the safety and welfare of the child and the parent when considering a request from a parent to move a child to another state. The burden of proof is upon the parent requesting the move, except that if the court finds that the person requesting the move is a victim of domestic violence, the burden of proof is on the parent opposing the move.

Custody and parenting time of children to unmarried persons. A proceeding by a father whose paternity has been recognized under Minnesota law to petition for rights of parenting time or custody may not be combined with a proceeding under the Domestic Abuse Act. Also, a petition by certain other individuals (e.g., grandparents or a person with whom a child has resided) for visitation rights may not be combined with a proceeding under the Domestic Abuse Act.

Participation in a parenting plan when a person is convicted of certain offenses. If a person seeking child custody or parenting time has been convicted of an applicable crime, the person seeking custody or parenting time has the burden to prove that custody or parenting time is in the best interests of the child. This provision applies if the conviction occurred within the preceding five years; the person currently is incarcerated, on probation or under supervised release for the offense; or the victim of the crime was a family or household member. In these cases, the court may not grant custody or parenting time to the person unless it finds that the custody or parenting time is in the best interests of the child. Also, if a person who has court-ordered custody of a child or parenting-time rights is convicted of an applicable crime and no action is pending regarding custody or parenting time, the sentencing court must refer the matter to the appropriate family court or action. The family court must:

• Grant temporary custody to the noncustodial parent, unless it finds that another custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child; or
• Suspend parenting-time rights, unless it finds that parenting time with the convicted person is in the best interests of the child.

Proceedings under this law must be expedited. The defendant has the burden of proving that continued custody or parenting time is in the best interests of the child. If the victim of the crime as a family or household member, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.

Temporary orders and restraining orders. A temporary order in a proceeding brought for custody, dissolution, legal separation, or related matters may not vacate or modify an order granted under the Domestic Abuse Act restraining an abusing party from committing acts of domestic abuse. Upon proper motion the court may, however, hear a motion for modification of an OFP concurrently with a proceeding for dissolution of marriage.

Guardian ad litem. In all child custody, marriage dissolution, or legal separation proceedings in which custody or parenting time of a minor child is an issue, the court must appoint a guardian ad litem if the court has reason to believe that the minor child is a victim of domestic child abuse or neglect. The guardian ad litem must represent the interests of the child and provide advice to the  court on custody and parenting time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a proceeding for an OFP under the Domestic Abuse Act, the court may provide the following relief, upon notice and hearing:

• Restrain the abusing party from committing acts of domestic abuse;
• Exclude the abusing party from the dwelling which the parties share or from the residence of the petitioner;
• Exclude the abusing party from a reasonable area surrounding the dwelling or residences
• Award temporary custody or establish temporary visitation with regard to minor children of the parties on a basis which gives primary consideration to the safety of the victim and the children;
• Establish temporary support for minor children or a spouse and order the withholding of support from the income of the person obligated to pay the support;
• Upon request of the petitioner, provide counseling or other social services for the parties, if married, or if there are minor children;
• Order the abusing party to participate in treatment or counseling services;
• Award temporary use and possession of property and make other orders regarding property;
• Exclude the abusing party from the place of employment of the petitioner or otherwise limit the abusing party’s access to the petitioner at the petitioner’s place of employment;
• Order the abusing party to pay restitution to the petitioner;
• Order the continuance of all currently available insurance coverage without change in coverage or beneficiary designation; or
• Order, in its discretion, other relief it deems necessary for the protection of a family or household member, including orders or directives to the sheriff or constable.

Relief that is granted by the order is for a fixed period of time, not to exceed one year, except when the court determines a longer fixed period is appropriate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Divorce is a stressful, significant occurrence in the life of all who are involved. The impact of divorce upon children cannot be ignored. Reputable divorce attorneys, and, more importantly, the Court, will put the interests of the children at  the top of the priority list.  Here are a few key points and suggestions to keep in mind as you move forward:

Keep Communication Open With Your Spouse/ Former Spouse. As long as children are involved, you and your former spouse will have to work together. Your children will suffer to the degree that you and your former spouse cannot communicate or cooperate.

Get Professional Help To Deal With Your Emotions. Please do your best to keep emotions out of the case. Your feelings of anger, pain, and betrayal are understandable, but expressing them inappropriately in court may interfere with your ability to provide a judge with the information they need. If you have trouble with the hostility, anger, or depression that often occurs in divorces, don’t hesitate to get counseling to help you through it. A good counselor can help you, and your children, get through this difficult time and avoid having the anger become counterproductive.

Encourage and Support Parenting Time. If you are the custodial parent and the court has ordered parenting time between your children and your ex-spouse, you have a duty to encourage parenting time. You must do more than just stay out of the way or leave the choice to the children. Encourage your children to see your former spouse frequently and to enjoy the contact. Never use support or parenting time as a lever or bargaining chip in dealing with the other parent. However, if mental health, chemical dependency, abuse or other issues arise and you think your children are not safe with your ex-spouse, seek professional advice on what to do.

Give Your Children a Chance. The way you and your spouse handle your divorce will have an enormous impact upon your children. If you argue and fight, their problems and pain will be magnified. By acting reasonably, you can help your children through one of the most difficult events of their lives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks