Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

A flawed prenuptial agreement has made it all the way to the highest court of New York State, with the New York Court of Appeals ruling that a flaw in formation can be deadly to a prenup's enforcement. In recently decided Galetta v. Galetta, the court ruled against the husband (6-0) for failing to properly acknowledge his signature. Errors like this reinforce the basic contractual nature of prenuptial agreements and stress both the formalities that must be followed and the importance of contacting an experienced matrimonial attorney when making such important life decisions.

Millionaire Corner, a website for the well-to-do, released a survey this April that dispelled commonly held stereotypes regarding certain gender views towards prenuptial agreements. When given the choice between five different views ranging from very pro-prenup to very anti-prenup, women identified more with pro-prenup side of the spectrum and their male counterparts identified more towards the antiquated, negative view of prenups. The most telling of these indicate that women lead men, 62% to 54%, in recommending a prenup to a couple getting married, and approximately 50% "don't feel there are any disadvantages" to a prenuptial agreement between the parties. The same website published another survey days later showing counter-intuitive views of prenups held by older generations, with more than two-thirds of participants over the age of 61 recommending a prenuptial agreement.

Prenuptial agreements, as discussed in a previous post, can often include strange, unorthodox terms. A common specific type of prenup has earned a name among those in the industry: the love contract. Love contracts are meant to put on paper an agreement regarding how the intimate love life of the couple will be conducted. Often in these contracts the terms specify either frequency or methods of lovemaking.

Such language in a prenuptial agreement really can muddy the waters for very limited enforceability, and such obligatory scheduling of a generally spontaneous act could trivialize many portions of the relationship. Suzanne Pelka, a sex therapist, explains that it is "really this false sense of control that we have because we don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow."

So, what happens when someone tries to fight such a clause? Typically these clauses are not enforceable within the marriage. Aside from demeaning the basic nature of intimacy, if a partner fails to meet the obligations outlined by the agreement, the only thing it may affect is the division of property during a divorce. These documents can not be referred to during the marriage or act as a supporting document to how the partner must act. No breach of contract cause of action can exist when it comes to "love contracts".

Continue reading "Prenuptial Agreements: Important for Every Florida Marriage " »

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a Canadian couple in their suit against an Indiana-based adoption agency after the couple learned of their potential child's drug addiction.

The baby, only days old, began showing signs of drug addiction while still in the hospital. The addiction was inherited from the birth- mother who had abused methadone while pregnant. The couple learned of the child's condition from a social worker, days after the agency knew.

A Bond of Life Adoptions, the adoption agency operating out of Indiana, originally succeeded in having the couple's complaint dismissed from trial court. The agency relied on a release clause found in their contract signed by all potential adoptive parents which limits liability against the agency for claims derived from unknown medical conditions of the child or the child's birth family.

The couple's complaint, based heavily on a breach of contract theory, cited the failure of the agency to disclose important medical information to the couple which would have affected their decision to adopt. Since the discovery of the condition, the couple withdrew from the adoption process, completely distraught, and has expressed that they will not likely explore further adoption opportunities.

In the court's opinion overturning the trial court's dismissal, the court listed an unfortunately long history of adoption agencies hiding behind such releases citing that withholding information is not protected under "unknown medical conditions".

Adoption providers, such as agencies or attorneys, are often barred from disclosing identifying information regarding the birth parents. However, this does not include medical or psychiatric information which would likely be important for the adoptive parents to know.

Nearly half of the states permit some sort of civil liability against adoption providers for a wrongful omission or commission. One of those states is Florida. Issues like this are another major reason that smart adoptive parents will seek out a knowledgeable experienced family law attorney.

Wrongful adoption suits, recognized in a number of states, vary in the basis of their elements. Most wrongful adoption suits do in some way allege that, through intent or negligence, the adoption provider did not act in good faith to inform the parents of potentially important information. Wrongful adoption claimants typically involve elements of misrepresentation, fraud, negligence, or contractual breach of good faith. Courts look at whether the information not disclosed is "material". Information is "material" if it would have impacted the adoptive parents' decision to adopt.

Many couples looking into adoption often explore international adoptions to avoid some of these problems, but US News recently reported on the failures of international adoption providers to diagnose, identify, or explore medical or psychological issues in the child and the child's family. Plus, suits become incredibly more complicated if not impossible when brought against an international adoption agency.

Continue reading "Wrongful Adoption Claims in Florida " »

A new research study released by UCLA has revealed that lower income marriages are more harshly affected by the common divorce causes of economics.

Previous studies have shown typically that lower income marriages suffer higher rates of divorce. This study, carried out by Dr. Karney and Dr. Trail of the university, found that lower income couples hold more traditional view on marriage than higher income counterparts.

The study examined over 4,000 Floridians and a cross examination of 1,500+ individuals of other states with the average age of respondents in the mid-40's. The study viewed how these lower income respondents compared to higher income individuals in regard to their standards, values, and their marriage experience. The lower income marriages suffered more as a result of substance use and money problems but their attitudes indicated a higher degree of disapproval for divorce.

Commenting on the social pressures, Dr. Trail noted that people with lower incomes "have similar standards for choosing a marriage partner and experience similar problems with managing their relationships". The study's conclusion indicated that public policy intended to educate low income couples on pitfalls of divorce would be better served to address the root problems facing the individuals that actually lead to the divorce in the first place.

Lessons to Learn
As a result of the study findings, there is no disparity in the romantic levels amongst different economic demographics but rather how the individuals are impacted by life's curve balls.

With money being the leading cause of divorce, there are many things couples of any economic range can do to lessen their chances of facing divorce.

First, understand that any couple has an income disparity between the partners. Too much of an income disparity can lead to guilt, resentment, imbalance of power, and money disputes.

Secondly, ensure that both parties understand both person's views of money, savings, and spending. Communication is a couple's best defense to future misunderstandings.

Thirdly, a budget between couples will keep both individuals informed of expectations.

Fourthly, create a balance of contributions. This prevents the bigger earner from feelings of resentment from the lower earner. This also clarifies expectations, which is one of the most important point parts of healthy communication between couples.

Lastly, plan ahead. Any income range can benefit from a prenuptial agreement which protects the assets going in and removes any incentive to divorce. The agreement will establish what property belongs to whom, and what property will be treated as marital property to be split in the event of a divorce.

One other concern low income couples and couples with an income disparity must consider is the possibility of child support. Income disparity and total income will both be taken into account in child support proceedings. Child support becomes especially important for a non-working parent who suddenly has full custody.

Continue reading "The Economic Demographics of Divorce " »

Oklahoma tycoon Harold Hamm, one of the top 100 richest men in the world, is making as big of an impact on the world of divorce as he has on the world of oil. The founder and CEO of Continental Resources is splitting from his wife of 25 years, Sue Ann Hamm and the first estimates place the costs to Harold at the $5-billion mark.

The couple has been estranged since Sue Ann claims she uncovered an affair Harold had in 2010. Divorce papers were filed in May 2012. There has been no clear evidence found of a prenuptial agreement between the couple. Provided no agreement is produced, Sue Ann would be entitled to "marital property" including 50% of Harold's 68% of controlling shares for Continental Resources.

The title for world's most expensive divorce is currently held by News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch at the cost of 1.7 billion.

Aside from a missing prenuptial, the biggest contributing factor will be Sue Ann's contributions to Harold's success. She has acted as a lawyer, economist, and executive for Continental Resources and is even responsible for creating its oil and gas marketing groups. Such contribution is known as joint business ventures - and is a major point courts look to when dividing property. In absence of such direct corporate assistance, many could argue that they contributed to the household. It seems as Sue Ann has done both. Plus since much of the growth of Continental shares have occurred after the couple tied the knot, courts will view this as "shared growth".

Tax Implications

According to a recent overview of the Hamm's tax situation, Forbes described the couple's tax situation. Internal Revenue Code section 1041 governs transfers between spouses and in the case of divorce. It supersedes previous case law, which taxed property acquired through divorce as taxable income. Because Harold has held his shares since he founded the company in the late 60s, his share of taxes each year is minimal. However, if now Sue Ann, after receiving 5 billion dollars worth of stock in her ex-husband's company, wants to sell the stocks for cash she will face massive tax burden

Lessons to Learn in your Florida Divorce:

Get a pre-nup. Harold is a smart business man and can calculate a risk. But this is also Harold's second marriage. Learn from him that even though you may think everything is going great in your relationship, you must remain prepared.

Consider your contribution. Contribute to the financial well-being of your household. Whether directly through business or at home, both will matter in court.

Don't misbehave. Some might think the fact Harold allegedly had an affair should not matter in a divorce, but it does. Even the most slight bias can affect how people view you.

Continue reading "World's Most Expensive Divorce " »

This blog has previously discussed changes to Florida's alimony laws (Senate Bill 718). Governor Scott vetoed this bill which included, as well, updates to Florida's child custody laws.

Specifically, child custody schedules were updated. Previously, there was never a codified mandate or guide that the custody break-down be 50/50 with both parents; rather judges just deemed what is right by a scattered amount of standards. Senate Bill 718 codifies a presumption that there be a 50/50 time sharing agreement between parents as, according to the legislature, it "is in the best interest of the child". The bill does provide for basic and necessary exceptions or considerations to this presumption however.

Some of these considerations include: physical, mental and emotional safety of the child; distance makes the sharing too burdensome; a court order has prevented contact with one parent; a parent is incarcerated; domestic violence has occurred; clear evidence that extenuating circumstances require a modification of the schedule; or a parent does not wish to retain his/her level of custody.

Govenor Scott has admitted he does approve of "several forward looking elements of this bill" but he recognizes the importance alimony plays to many households. Currently, only four states have ended permanent alimony. Gov. Scott further criticized the Florida bill for its retroactive application which damaged ideas of fairness and "could result in unfair, unanticipated results."

No Custody for Rapists

This April, the Florida legislature approved another more specific child custody bill which has been long overdue. The bill, SB 964, would prohibit a convicted rapist from acquiring child custody rights over the child conceived from the attack. The Florida House unanimously passed SB 964 with a vote of 115-0. The bill will be going to Governor Rick Scott and will take effect upon his expected signature.

A staff report in support of the bill reported that only 19 states terminate parental rights of convicted rapist for any child conceived through their crime. Now, with Florida having passed the bill, a startling 30 states (as well as the District of Columbia) remain which have no law on the books that bars a rapist from seeking visitation or custody rights. These states are as follows: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Previously, rapists could seek custody of the child born from their attack. In some cases, this can even be used as a backdoor bargaining chip to discourage the victim from reporting the incident, testifying, or participating in sentencing hearings.

Continue reading "Important Updates to Florida's Alimony/Child Custody Legislation " »

This January, an Ohio father who was behind on his child support payments in an amount over $96,000 was ordered to stop having children. This type of judicial mandate, although rare, has been issued twice by Wisconsin in the past year.

Asim Taylor, father of four, was first indicted in August 2011 when he was in arrears of close to $80,000. In 2013, with his unpaid child support closing in on $100,000, Judge James Walther extended Taylor's probation by an additional five years and issued this unique mandate.

Taylor Judge Walther described the need for such an extreme controversial condition: "It's your personal responsibility to pay for these kids." The terms became part of Taylor's probation and are not intended to be permanent, but violation of such order could lead to jail time.

An appeal is already expected as Taylor's lawyer has been arguing that the judge overstepped his boundaries, and such an order is a violation of Taylor's constitutional right of privacy. A court date for Taylor to reappear is schedule for July, 2013.

Individuals with children going through a divorce must be prepared for their eventual child support order. The best advice is to hire a competent family law attorney at the onset, since the initial child support order acts as a theoretical anchor for future modifications.

In Florida, neither parent may waive child support by the noncustodial parent as child support is meant for the child and should not be bargained away by parents.

Some possible punishments for failure to satisfy child support payments:

Loss of driver's license. Oftentimes, the revocation occurs without immediate notification to the nonpaying supporter.

Interception of tax refund. Florida can and has "intercepted" tax refunds to defaulting parents.

Liens and wages. Like taxes, Florida may attach liens or garnish wages in order to satisfy outstanding debt. These methods place the debt of the child support away from the child's needs and onto the nonpaying parent. Not only does this method affect the nonpaying parent's cash flow but can also harm their relationship with their employer.

Bank savings. In some rarer instances, the State of Florida has been able to reach certain bank funds, and freeze others.

Harm to credit score. Different orders, defaults, or delinquency notices all appear on credit reports and harm the offender's credit score.

Continue reading "Judge Orders No More Children for Deadbeat Dad " »

Spousal Refusal
In the context of healthcare and elder law, "spousal refusal" occurs when a healthy spouse (in this case referred to as the "community spouse") refuses to pay for the healthcare expenses incurred by their unwell spouse. Generally, married spouses are obliged to financially contribute to the healthcare costs of their spouses, including nursing home costs.

A spouse facing spousal refusal may fill out a form with Medicaid stating their spouse is refusing to contribute. Medicaid will then seek contribution or reimbursement from the "community spouse."

In response to the often tight finances of the elderly, the federal government passed the Spousal Refusal law, which protects the community spouse from extraordinarily burdensome expenses, which may severely endanger the community spouse's finances. In such cases, this law allows the ill spouse Medicaid access, and permits Medicaid to later seek reimbursement from the community spouse's estate after his or her death. This methodology has generally been quite effective for couples facing significant healthcare costs in that it protects the couple's assets, provides for the ill spouse, and gives reimbursement to Medicaid.

Dangerous Legislation
Currently pending in Florida's House and Senate are two bills (HB 1323 and SB 1748) which would force the ill spouse to "cooperate" with Medicaid in seeking reimbursement from the refusing spouse. If the ill spouse is incapable of cooperating due to the nature of their illness, the ill spouse's agent would be required to cooperate against the community spouse. Cooperation, although not yet defined, may include filing documents or testifying alongside Medicaid against the community spouse.

Certain amendments are being proposed by elder advocate associations such as the AARP and the Florida Department of Children and Families, which are attempting to move the focus off of mandated cooperation by striking sections and shifting the focus to targeting higher income individuals who are abusing the concept of Spousal Refusal. The purpose of the legislation should not be to make certain elders indigent, but rather to ensure that ineligible individuals cannot hide assets.

Without such amendments, the proposed legislation could have serious implications for elderly married couples. People who have been married for decades could begin considering divorce to separate property so that the ill spouse can continue to receive their much needed Medicaid, and the community spouse can pay family bills. Further, oftentimes when an elderly individual becomes too ill to oversee their affairs they appoint a child. If agents of ill individuals are legally forced to cooperate in seeking contribution from the community spouse, you will see houses divided and individuals compelled to speak against their parent or grandparent's financial interest.

Continue reading "Important Legislation for Elderly Married Couples in Florida " »

On April 10, 2013, a couple accused of kidnapping their own children were arrested in Tampa after having been returned to the U.S. by Cuban authorities.

The couple, Joshua and Sharyn Hakken, had officially lost custody of their two young boys on April 2. Last year, police found the couple at a hotel in Slidell, Louisiana, acting abnormally, claiming to be "contemplating their ultimate journey" and discussing the Armageddon. Upon further investigation, the couple was found to be in possession of weapons and narcotics. At that point the children, ages 2 and 4, were removed from the Hakkens' care and placed in foster care under CPS (Child Protective Services). Joshua Hakken spent the next week in jail and then, upon his release, visited the foster home his children were taken to and demanded them back at gunpoint.

The family's flight to Cuba began after the Lousiana Family Court gave permanent custody of the Hakken boys to Joshua Hakken's parents. The day after the ruling, Joshua went to his parents' home in Tampa and kidnapped the children after tying up his own mother. The Hakkens had their escape planned, and in the days leading up to the kidnapping, they purchased a 25-foot sailboat, the seller of which later tipped off authorities regarding the Hakkens' plan. Joshua, his wife, and the two boys then proceeded to sail to Cuba. The couple arrived at the Marina Hemingway, a facility slightly west of Havana.

Upon the Hakkens' arrival, Cuban authorities informed the U.S. State Department of the family's presence on the island. After such information was passed on, "constant communication" was maintained according to Johana Tablada between U.S. officials the Cuban Foreign Ministry. This level of contact, concern, and communication was an important step for U.S.-Cuba relations as there does not exist any sort of extradition agreement between the countries.

Law enforcement officers retrieved the family and brought them back to the U.S., where Joshua Hakken is currently facing a slew of criminal charges, including two counts of kidnapping, child neglect, false imprisonment, interference with child custody, and others. The grandparents have expressed deep appreciation for how the operation was handled, and have welcomed the young boys back.

The Law Office of Sandy T. Fox can guide you through a safe and effective resolution of your child custody issues. Studies estimate there are nearly 1,000 within-family kidnappings per day in the U.S. In these cases, there is roughly a 50 percent chance that the kidnapping will be committed by the mother or father.

Parental kidnapping is a traumatic event for the children and the custodial guardians, often resulting in long term emotional harm for all parties involved, and in some instances physical harm. State legislation (Florida Statute 61.45 & the Florida Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) and federal legislation (the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 & the International Child Abduction Remedies Act) have extended the degree of preventive measures and applicable punishment for those engaging in parental kidnapping. It is important to operate through the family court for any custodial issues you wish to dispute, whether you feel you deserve a higher degree of custody, or you don't believe the person with custody should have such responsibility.

Continue reading "Couple Kidnapped Own Children, Fled to Cuba, Returned to Florida " »

Florida Family Court Judge and former prosecutor Susan Aramony, of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court (Broward Circuit), passed away in her Fort Lauderdale home on Monday April 8, 2013.

Ms. Aramony graduated from Emory University School of Law in 1981 and went on to lead a successful career as a prosecutor. After graduation, Ms. Aramony served as a Broward County Assistant State Attorney for the Juvenile Division of Broward County. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Ms. Aramony had ascended to head of the Juvenile Division. During this time, Ms. Aramony operated as a member of the Gang Activity Prevention Advisory Board and as the chairwoman of the Juvenile Justice Board of Broward County.

After having served over 12 years in the Juvenile Division, Governor Jeb Bush appointed her as the Unified Family Court Judge of the 17th Circuit, Broward Circuit in December 1999, taking office the following January. Then-governor Jeb Bush explained his motivation in selecting Ms. Aramony, stating that "Susan's hands-on experience as an assistant state attorney within Florida's legal system has given her the knowledge and skills needed to do a tremendous job". According to Bush, her experience in the juvenile system gave her the perspective to see the harmful effects crime has on the family unit and how to best be fair to the parties. In 2008, Ms. Aramony was re-elected as County Family Court Judge for an additional six year term.

Ms. Aramony's reputation was renowned throughout the Florida family court system, and her thirteen year legacy on the bench has garnered admiration for her character and dedication. Chief Administrative Judge Peter Weinstein described Ms. Aramony as "one of the most caring, kind and concerned human beings I've ever known". These views were shared by Broward County's top defense attorneys and prosecutor, with State Attorney Mike Satz describing her as "a very good person who touched the lives of many, many people" and Public Defender Howard Finkelstein recounting that Ms. Aramony was "always fair, as a judge and as a prosecutor".

Aramony's family has expressed their wishes that cause of death not be disclosed but mentioned that she was home at rest with her husband and sons when she passed away. However, according to the Daily Business Review Broward affiliate, Ms. Aramony had suffered a long battle with cancer.

Continue reading "Loss for Florida Court System - Judge Susan Aramony " »

Robert D. Sand has been declared America's most-wanted deadbeat dad. In November 2012, the fifty-year-old father of three was found and arrested in the Philippines and extradited to the US after having been featured on the Department of Health and Human Services list of "Most Wanted Deadbeats".

In 1995, a county judge in Long Island, NY ordered Sand to pay $750 per week (which was eventually increased to $995), to ex-spouse Lisa Sand for support of their two children. The couple had been married for 10 years, and Mr. Sand's annual income from his own business was over $500,000.

In 1997, Sand moved to Florida and married his second wife, with whom he had his third child. Shortly after, the couple divorced and Sand was ordered to pay an additional $625 to his second wife for child support. This is when Sand fled the country.

After having paid a total of $87,000 worth of child support payments, Sand stopped. Warrants for his arrest were issued in 2000 and 2002. To evade payments and prosecution, Sand fled the country. He was located in Thailand before being arrested in the Philippines.

After being brought back to the US, the amount of child support in arrears, plus penalties and fees owed by Sand, totaled over $1.2 million. Attorney Loretta Lynch described Sand's character when she said in a statement: "Neither court orders nor the familial bond meant anything to him as he fled to avoid his obligations." Sand could see a four year sentence for such support evasion, however, according to Sand's first wife, he should be a free man to be able to work off his debt, which he is fully responsible to pay.

Florida Child Support Info
It is most advisable to contact an experienced family law attorney to assist you in calculating and submitting your financial information that will be the basis of your child support payments. Child support payments can be determined during your divorce action or possibly on a later date. Child support can also be modified due to changes in either spouses' living situation. Courts will generally base child support on annual income, however they can take into consideration many other factors: including health costs, custody, cost of living, etc. Payments may be made weekly, biweekly, or bimonthly.

Either spouse can make a motion to court to adjust their child support for good cause. Enforcement of payments is performed by the Florida Department of Revenue. Failure to pay can lead to liens, suspension of vehicle or business licenses, harm to one's credit score, or even prosecution.

Continue reading "Notorious Child Support Evader and Florida Child Support Law " »

Divorces that occur in Florida are not always marriages that occured in Florida. Many married couples in the state of Florida tied the knot either in another state or maybe even a foreign country. When a couple divorces many US states consider the law of the jurisdiction where the nuptials were made.

But in some cases there are exceptions.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee is reviewing a bill that would ban courts and other tribunals from considering the religious or foreign law of the originating jurisdiction of the marriage during a divorce proceeding. In place, Florida would be applied for such matters of divorce, alimony, division of property, child custody and support.

The current bill, introduced by Republican state Senator Alan Hays and Representative Larry Metz, is viewed by some as a direct affront to civil rights and individuals' freedom of religion. Opponents see the bill as specifically rallying anti-Islamic attitudes to ban Sharia law. Sharia law is the Islamic moral code and is the law in numerous Islamic countries covering most criminal and civil actions including marriage and divorce. Sharia law applies in full as the de facto law of states including Saudi Arabia and Iran and influences the law of other major Muslim countries. The United Kingdom even allows for Sharia tribunals to mediate family law issues for consenting individuals and maybe soon will allow Sharia divorce in court.

Some basics of Sharia divorce:
Under Sharia law, a divorce is initiated once one partner says they want a divorce three times in a row. Different regions dictate whether this is a symbolic initiation or an immediate confirmation. Then the couple goes into a period known as talaq in which the couple is separated for three months. The man may insist on his wife's return or if not the divorce is confirmed. One problematic factor of Sharia law is that a man may not be forced to pay alimony after the talaq period when the divorce has been finalized.

Similar bills in Florida have been proposed in the past, by the same two legislators of the current bill. In no instance has either proponent of the bill been able to cite a family law case where Sharia Law has been relied upon.

Last year, the 10th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals court invalidated an Oklahoma law that would have prohibited courts from considering Shariah law specifically. This specificity within the bill was likely its downfall, as it targeted a single group on the basis of a protected characteristic (religion). Proponent of the Oklahoma bill used as support a New Jersey case in which a judge refused to grant a restraining order for the wife because he was relying on the expectations of spouses as set out in Sharia law.

Continue reading "Proposed Florida Bill Would Preclude Application of Sharia Law to Florida Divorce Cases " »

There are instruction manuals for every device or household appliance you acquire, however, you get nothing after you tie the bonds of holy matrimony. The Florida Family Policy Council reports that Florida Senator Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland and Representative Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, are expected to introduce a bill to have a marriage handbook created and distributed to newlyweds.

Currently, in order to obtain a marriage license, couples are required to read a "handbook" which details the cold harsh realities of marriage but not actual constructive advice. The current handbook has instructions on how property would be divided in a divorce, what to do in the case of domestic violence, or what you can and can't legally do to your spouse and children. This proposed handbook would try to help couples from having marriage's darker side.

The guidebook's purpose is to possibly curb divorce rates and other incidents of marital discord. The guidebook would cover topics of sharing finances, conflict management, parenting skills, and other important matters individuals entering a lifelong bond would need to know to ease their inevitable obstacles. The guidebook would contain contact information for agencies and other supporting bodies for individuals needing further marital assistance. Similar guidebooks are distributed in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.

The guidebook would be given out at the offices of the clerk of the court to all couples looking to be wed. Sen. Kelli explains the need for such a guidebook saying "so many young couples getting married today come from broken homes and cannot draw upon a living example of how a marriage works".

The new literature is welcomed. Florida, the sunshine state, currently ranks 8th in divorce rates. According to Rep. Baxley Florida taxpayers carry a $2 billion dollar annual burden for costs related to divorce and supporting single parent families.

Some question the usefulness of such a manual citing the idea that the couples to take an interest in reading the book will likely find solutions and those likely to ignore it will be the ones needing it the most. However, any opponents have little grounds to reject the proposal as the publishing of the book would be completely funded by money raised from private foundations and, accordingly, is not expected to cost the taxpayer anything.

The bill will appoint a Marriage Education Committee to create the book with the goal of helping and preparing individuals citing extensive research that supports that marriage education has allowed unprepared couples to end the engagement early rather than engage in an eventual divorce.

Continue reading "Florida Legislators Propose a Required Reading Guidebook to Marriage " »

Alimony, otherwise known as maintenance or spousal support, has long been a pillar of social and economic stability for individuals reorganizing their life after a divorce. A bill intended to reform Florida's alimony laws, known as HB231, has just passed its first subcommittee in the Florida House in a 10-2 vote and is now headed the House Judiciary Committee to be decided in the next several weeks. The HB231 bill's purpose is to limit the extent of alimony, both the amount and the duration.

Alan Frischer, of Florida Alimony Reform, created the bill in hopes of updating what the group sees as Florida's "archaic" alimony system. The bill's sponsor, Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, hopes this bill will allow someone who has gone through a divorce the ability to "move on with their life" without forever being tied to excessive payments. During the subcommittees hearings, several victims of the current "archaic" alimony system were brought in to explain their plight. The individuals included one divorced man who claimed about half of his salary went solely to alimony.

Opponents of the current reform bill cited the important role alimony plays in many people's lives, especially newly single parents. Many spouses develop a skill set, lifestyle, and spending budget based on the couple's income. When the marriage ends the spouse who contributed to the household but has not developed professionally could be left in severe need; unable to pay bills based on the previous income. In most instances, this disadvantaged spouse is the woman which has led to critics, such as Rep. Cynthia Stafford, D-Miami, to call this reform "anti-woman".

One of the basic most tangible tenets of HB231 is that it would limit the extent of alimony to 50% of the duration of the marriage. In other words, a 20 year marriage could lead to only 10 years of alimony. A divorcing partner could seek an extension of this time, which will be known as durational alimony, with only "clear and convincing evidence that exceptional circumstances justify the need for a longer award of alimony." In order to make such a showing, one should contact a qualified Florida family law attorney.

Continue reading "The Uncertain Future of Florida Alimony " »

In January 2013, Miami-Dade County Judge Antonio Marin allowed an agreement between Massimilano Gerina, Maria Italiano and Cher Filippazzo permitting all three names be recorded on their daughter's birth certificate as legitimate legally recognized parents.

Italiano and Filippazzo, a lesbian couple, met Gerina, a gay male hairstylist, in 2006 by patronizing his salon. The business relationship evolved to a true friendship between the three and after a few discussions over 2008-2009, Gerina agreed to assist the couple, specifically Italiano, conceive a child. In 2010, the three initiated an insemination process that was soon successful. Gerina and Italiano became biological parents of Italiano and Filippazzo's baby. According to Gerina, an agreement that he would be the "father" and would be able to see the child whenever he wished was made orally before the conception. Gerina claimed he couldn't foresee the potential paperwork mess that might occur with three possible parents.

After the conception, Gerina had been approached by the couple and asked to sign an agreement stating that he was just a sperm-donor but never put anything in writing. The women's attorney stated "When push came to shove, they figured he would understand the situation" and called their failure to have it in writing a "mistake". Gerina then knew he needed to seek legal representation as his expectation of a, although somewhat nontraditional, family was in jeopardy. With the advice of legal counsel, Gerina initiated a paternity suit. A paternity action in Florida is filed in order to assist a parent in protecting vital parental rights such as visitation, custody, and financial support. Simply because someone is a biological father does not necessarily lead to him to be recognized as the father in a paternity suit.

The up-hill battle involved two years of litigation in a Florida courtroom; but to Gerina, this was his family, his future, and paramount interest. In Florida, true sperm donors lack any sort of parental rights. However, what Begin argued was that this was not a case of a sperm donor but rather a man participating only under the idea he was creating a family because of an agreement between the parties. Italiano and Filippazzo agree that Gerina is a valued and important part of the child's life but according to their understanding of the oral agreement, they expected to have exclusive parental rights.

In addition to allowing Gerina on the birth certificate, Judge Marin also granted weekly visits for the new father. Since January Gerina has reported he is actually seeing the child more often, and Gerina and the couple have put legal battle behind them. Seeing that all parties had the child's best interest as their first priority, the Judge was happy to ensure that all three loving parents got the legal recognition they deserve.

Continue reading "Three Parents? Florida Judge Allows Biological Father on Birth Certificate with Lesbian Parents " »

Middle-class women tend to be the most affected by a divorce, in terms of health insurance coverage. A study published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior at the end of 2012 found that over 100,000 women annually lose their private health insurance as a result of divorce. And unfortunately, the middle class tends to suffer the most as a result of their income being too high for public assistance but too low to have coverage outside of their ex-spouse's company offered insurance. The age group most severely impacted is 40-60. This group is under the Medicare age requirement, and in many cases relies on their spouse's health plan.

On some occasions even a spouse with insurance through an employer may elect to unenroll for a period of time to cover new daily increased costs of living single. Research has shown that a divorce typically has a severely negative effect on most women's income and relative purchase power. A married couple has numerous cost and tax advantages not as often offered to single counterparts.

The ironic part of this is all is that happily married people tend to be healthier too. However, according to a study published in Psychology Today, a happy single person is far better off than a unhappy married one.

Continue reading "How Your Florida Divorce Impacts Your Health Insurance " »