Guardianship

Guardianship refers to the authority to make decisions on behalf of an adult individual who has been deemed incapacitated by the court. The standard for incapacity involves an analysis of whether the individual can manage their financial resources and/or meet essential requirements for their own health and safety. The first step for a party interested in pursuing guardianship of someone is to file a petition with the court. It will be necessary to secure expert testimony regarding the extent of the incapacity and the potential necessity for a guardian. The Petitioner has the burden to prove incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. Notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition must be served on the individual for whom guardianship is sought (Respondent) explaining in plain language the possible ramifications of the forthcoming legal proceedings. Notice must also be given to additional interested parties such as family members.

Following the hearing the court must determine if guardianship is appropriate. First, the court must designate if it is limited guardianship or plenary guardianship. Limited guardianship is appropriate where the Respondent is not totally incapacitated. In this case, the court must delineate what powers the Petitioner will have. The court must also indicate the duration of the guardianship. The appointed guardian must act for the best interests of the Respondent and file a report each year with the court regarding the ongoing care of the Respondent. The Respondent or any other interested party can petition the court to modify or terminate the guardianship if circumstances change or if the appointed guardian is not acting appropriately.

Click here to read more about PA Family Law.

by

Same-Sex Marriage

Just short of a year following the US Supreme Court decision that the federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was unconstitutional, Pennsylvania has followed suit in recognizing its own marriage laws are also unconstitutional. In a decision rendered May 20, 2014, the Honorable John E. Jones, III, sitting for the US District Court in the Middle District on the case of Whitewood v. Michael Wolf, ruled that two of Pennsylvania’s laws regarding marriage were unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth amendment. 23 Pa. C.S. 1102, limiting marriage to heterosexuals, and 23 Pa C.S. 1704, prohibiting recognition of homosexual marriages even where the couples were legally married elsewhere, are no longer enforceable.

The case of Whitewood v. Michael Wolf was filed last July by 11 homosexual couples, five of which were unmarried and hoping to be married in Pennsylvania, and six couples who were legally married elsewhere but reside in Pennsylvania. The due process clause guarantees that all citizens shall have certain fundamental rights and the court held the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right. The equal protection clause prohibits a state from denying a person in its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The Plaintiffs were successful in arguing for a heightened level of scrutiny to be applied as the classification on the basis of sexual orientation was quasi-suspect. Accordingly, Defendants were left with the burden to demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” as to how the statute prohibiting homosexual marriage served an important government objective. The court found the Defendants were unable to carry that burden. As the closing remark in the opinion by Judge Jones states: “We are a better people that what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” 

Click here to read more on issues regarding same-sex couples.

by

Matrimonial Early Settlement Panels

Pursuant to NJ Court Rule 5:5-5, all counties in the state are required to maintain an Early Settlement Panel (ESP) program. The goal of the program is to promote resolution prior to trial. Most divorce cases will settle prior to trial either at an ESP or otherwise. The panels are usually comprised of two-three attorneys experienced in family law. Additionally, some counties offer specialized panels for complex cases wherein the panel will feature some of the most experienced attorneys practicing matrimonial law. Each party should submit a memo to the panel either prior to or at the time of the ESP. The memo should outline the issues in the case and narrow which issues need to be resolved as well as any issues that have already been settled.

Issues to be considered during an ESP include alimony, child support, college and private school costs, equitable distribution, debts, life insurance, tax issues, and counsel fees. It is important to make sure discovery is complete prior to the ESP to ensure the panelists can be effective and provide a comprehensive recommendation. Additionally, parties should be sure their Case Information Sheet is completed and up-to-date. Cases that settle at the panel can conclude that day. The terms of the agreement can be reduced to writing or put on the record and the divorce decree can be issued. It’s possible parties can be directed to an ESP more than once. If the ESP doesn’t work, the next step is likely another form of alternate dispute resolution, e.g. economic mediation or binding arbitration.

Click here to read more on NJ Family Law.

by

Contested Paternity Case

The current statute relating to paternity is 23 Pa.C.S. §4343. As it relates to testing to determine paternity, the statute provides: (c) Genetic Tests. (1) Upon the request of any party to an action to establish paternity, supported by a sworn statement from the party, the court or domestic relations section shall require the child and the parties to submit to genetic tests. The domestic relations section shall obtain an additional genetic test upon the request and advance payment by any party who contests the initial test. Tests results alone are not sufficient to establish paternity. Instead, the parties must stipulate in writing that the test results prove paternity or the court must make an order on paternity after reviewing the test results.

As a matter of science, it is not necessary to have both parents of the child tested. Either parent can be simply tested against the child at issue to establish clear results as to whether they are a biological parent. However, the courts should make a practice of routinely testing both parents as indicated by the statute. In a recent paternity case, the Father filed a Complaint for Paternity after he separated from his girlfriend who had become pregnant. He never had an opportunity to see the child after birth. Following a hearing, genetic testing was ordered. Father and child were tested but Mother refused to be tested. The results excluded Father as a biological parent. Father, believing there may have been foul play, insisted on Mother being tested. Following a second hearing, Mother was ordered to be tested as well to prove she was in fact the biological parent of the child she brought in for testing. The results from her test excluded her as a biological parent as well. This means Mother brought a child in for testing that she knew was not her child, likely in an attempt to thwart Father’s claim of paternity. Currently, a third hearing is being requested to ensure the correct child is presented for testing. This case should be a lesson to the court to enforce the provision of the statute requiring both parties submit to genetic tests in any action for paternity.

by

Laws Affecting Un-Married Couples

Many courts will recognize legal property and/or support rights arising from cohabitation of non-married parties. Palimony refers to the support obligation that may arise following the end of the relationship. NJ previously recognized palimony claims however a recent change to the law has made it more difficult to obtain by requiring a written agreement on support between the parties. This new statute did not result in the end of all palimony type claims however. Just a few months ago, in Joiner-Orman v. Orman, the court allowed a palimony award for Wife. The relationship lasted 39 years and Wife stayed home to raise the parties’ 4 children. The court relied on the doctrine of full performance to justify the palimony award in that Wife had fulfilled her end of the bargain as a homemaker and full-time Mom and so allowing Husband to leave the relationship without paying support would be unfair. The Orman case is not precedential as it is only a trial court decision and unreported.

Pennsylvania may also recognize some rights between unmarried couples as a matter of equity. Generally title controls ownership in the case of unmarried couples however there are exceptions to the general rule including unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Unjust enrichment is the theory that it is unfair to allow the person that does not have title to be excluded from wealth they helped create. Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning what one has earned. In this context, the court must consider whether the conduct of the parties evidences an agreement and/or expectation of some form of compensation for performance. Quantum meruit requires a contract or agreement, tacit or otherwise, whereas unjust enrichment does not and is just about the courts doing what is fair. The best way to avoid a legal battle if things go awry in any relationship is to have all agreements clearly stated and reduced to writing.

Click here to review all of our areas of practice.

by

Service Members Civil Relief Act

The Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. It was an overhaul of the SSCRA which had been law since 1940. The main purpose of the SCRA is to protect service members from civil lawsuits while they are on active duty and unable to adequately defend themselves. The protections of the SCRA, accordingly, apply to family law matters such as divorce, custody and support. Divorce complaints must either include a statement that neither party is a service member on active duty or be accompanied by an affidavit of non-military service. The service member has the right to waive their protection under the SCRA and still proceed if they desire to. Any waiver of rights under the SCRA must be in writing.

The SCRA provides for a mandatory stay of civil proceedings if the case does involve a service member in active duty. The stay period may be extended if necessary. An application for a stay should establish that the present active duty impairs the ability of the service member to appear and defend themselves in the civil action. The application should also indicate when the service member expects to be available to participate. A statement by the service member’s commanding officer needs to be provided corroborating the facts alleged by the service member in the application. An SCRA website is available where inquiries can be made into the active duty status of any individual.

Click here to read more on the impact of military obligations.

by

Discovery in Family Law

Discovery is the process of obtaining information from the opposing party in the course of a lawsuit. Discovery is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Pa. R.C.P.). Rule 1930.5 states that there shall be no discovery in a simple support, custody or Protection from Abuse proceeding unless authorized by court. In order for you to be allowed to send discovery in a support matter, you must get your case deemed complex by the court. Discovery is allowed in alimony, equitable distribution, counsel fee and expense proceedings and in complex support cases without leave of court. The information requested must be relevant to the case pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1. In divorce, the court gives much leeway as to what is relevant since the factors for equitable distribution allow for broadness.

Formal discovery methods must adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the acceptable methods include interrogatories, depositions, production requests, subpoena to produce things and/or documents, and request for admission. Interrogatories and production request are the most frequently used methods of discovery in divorce cases. Interrogatories are a written set of questions for the other party to answer. A production request lists all the documents a party is seeking. Subpoenas are utilized as well when it is necessary to get information directly from the source in the instance a party does not have it or will not cooperate in turning it over. Due to the expense to the parties for discovery, lawyers will sometimes agree to exchange discovery informally. This generally involves the lawyers deciding what information is relevant and then gathering that information and sending it to the other side in exchange for receiving documentation that they need from the other side that is also relevant.

Click here to read more on Discovery.

by

Couples Workshop

The Philadelphia Center for Emotionally Focused Training is sponsoring a workshop for couples on February 2, 2013 titled “Hold Me Tight.” The focus of the workshop is to help couples reconnect and move forward in a more loving relationship. Dr. Ruth Jampol and Dr. Nancy Logue will be facilitating the workshop which will use the book written by Dr. Sue Johnson titled “Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love.” The workshop will be held at 102 West Maple Avenue, Langhorne, PA 19047 from 9:30 AM until 4:30 AM. Potential participants are encouraged to register in advance. Additional information regarding the workshop can be found in the flyer on our home page as well as the link below.

“Hold Me Tight” Couples Workshop

by

Agreements in Family Law

Parties are often encouraged to try to reach an agreement to resolve whatever issues have arisen in any legal matter. In family law, agreements are especially encouraged due to the personal nature of the issues at hand along with the belief that it is better for the parties to draft their own agreement rather than allow a stranger to dictate their family dynamics going forward. Most agreements in family law will be treated as any contract would and the parties will be obligated to comply with the provisions or face an action for contempt. The family court will retain jurisdiction over all agreements entered that are subsequently submitted to the court to be made an order. As with any contract the court is generally only concerned that the agreement was entered into voluntarily and knowingly. The court will not necessarily be reviewing the content of the agreement before allowing it to become an order of court.

If a provision of the agreement needs to be enforced and one party seeks the court’s help in pursuing contempt, at that point the court would need to examine the content of the agreement in order to make a decision on a resolution of the contempt. Many agreements will include a provision that the party who breaches the agreement will be responsible for attorney fees if contempt must be sought through the court to gain compliance. The most comprehensive agreement in a family law matter is a marital or property settlement agreement. This type of agreement sets out to resolve all issues in a divorce matter including, but not limited to, how the divorce will be proceed to finalization, division of property, child and spousal support and/or alimony, and custody. One provision that will not hold up in court even if the parties agreed to it is the waiver of child support. The PA Supreme Court ruled in Knorr v. Knorr, decided in 1991, that a parent may not contract away a child’s right to support as the court views child support as an entitlement of the child rather than the parents.

Click here to read more on family law issues.

by

PA Children’s Trust Fund

Most family law actions that will be filed include a filing fee for the initial complaint or pleading. A part of these filing fees go to fund the Pennsylvania Children’s Trust Fund (CTF). This fund has received approximately $40 million dollars from family law filing fees since inception. The initiative of the CTF is to prevent child abuse and neglect across the state. The main emphasis of CTF is to put prevention programs in place to decrease child abuse and neglect overall. The CTF grants its money to local community programs with the same initiatives. It is up to the respective community programs to apply with CTF to see if they are eligible for a grant. Currently, upwards of 250 community based programs across the state have received grants to aid in the fight against child abuse and neglect.

The PA CTF recently established a supporting organization, “Friends of the Children’s Trust Fund.” The goal of this supporting organization is to raise additional awareness and financial support for the mission of the CTF. The fund focusing on prevention due to the negative and potentially long-term impacts of abuse and neglect including, but not limited to, poor physical, mental, and emotional health, social difficulties and behavioral problems. There is also a corresponding economic impact associated with dealing the aftermath of abuse and neglect making an even greater case for the importance of prevention. Many other states across the country also have a similar fund to aid in the prevention of child abuse and maltreatment.

Please visit pactf.org for more information on the Children’s Trust Fund in Pennsylvania.

by