Tag Archive for: family law

Our area is still recovering from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. The storm’s strong winds and rain caused widespread damage over a large area of the nation. Specifically, southeastern Pennsylvania is still dealing with power outages due to downed trees and wires. Many government offices, schools and local courts were forced to close Monday and Tuesday of this week. At this point, all local courts in southeastern PA are open and may be contacted as far as any matters that need to be rescheduled. Our office hopes everyone has remained safe during the storm. We will continue to work hard to assist you in all your family law needs as our communities continue to recover from the aftermath.

 

First Lady Michelle Obama has been promoting a law that would make it easier for military spouses to maintain gainful employment in spite of their often transient lives. The law makes it easier for military servicemembers and their spouses to transfer out-of-state occupational licenses so they can continue working in their profession without significant delay after relocating. Just last week, Illinois became the 23rd state in the country to pass the legislation.

Without such legislation in place, many military spouses are forced to take odd jobs to pay the bills while they deal with the red tape of having an occupational license transferred. Often, it can take several months or more to have the licenses transferred based on the cumbersome paperwork still required in some states.

First Lady Obama took up this initiative to help support military families back in February of 2012. Prior to February, only 11 states had similar legislation on the books. Pennsylvania is one of the states that has yet to pass legislation favorable to military spouses looking to continue their careers despite relocation.

More on Military Divorce Law

The custody laws in Pennsylvania were recently revamped with a new set of statutes regarding custody coming into effect in 2011. Any custody award is still to be based on the best interests of the child. Section 5328 of the new law lays out 15 factors to be considered when awarding custody in addition to any relevant factor.

The enumerated factors include:

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of the child.

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf of the child.

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child from harm.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special needs of the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with that party.

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.

Section 5323 provides that the court must detail the reasons for its decision either on the record in open court or in a written opinion. Therefore, the court must go through each factor that it considered and explain why it decided as it did. So far, the Superior Court has been strict in upholding this requirement. In J.R.M. v. J.E.A., the court awarded primary custody to the mother and father appealed on the basis that the trial court did not consider the 16 factors listed in Section 5328. 2011 Pa Super 263 (2011). The Superior Court granted the appeal, finding that the trial court did not properly consider the factors listed in the statute. Accordingly, all parties in a custody action should be prepared to argue on all of the relevant factors and also ensure that the court addresses all relevant factors in their decision.