A recent article published in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussed a case in Middlesex Probate & Family Court where an attorney in a divorce case asked the judge to order one spouse to pay "pet support" to the other spouse to care for the couples' two dogs. The judge immediately refused the request. The article noted that the judge had just heard a series of cases that involved foreclosed houses and parents losing their jobs.
This illustrates an issue that many divorcing couples face when going through the court process. Courts usually only have the time and resources to deal with the "big" issues -- alimony, child custody and support, and property division. That doesn't neatly fit for families that have a variety of other issues, such as pet support or visitation, property sharing, and care taking approaches unique to a child's specific and unique needs.
The best way to address these issues is to come to an agreement on the issue and include the resolution in a separation agreement which can then be presented to a judge. Many couples choose to do this by hiring their own attorneys to work out a negotiation with the other spouse's attorney. An increasing number of couples are also choosing to hire a mediator to meet with both spouses and discuss the questions and concerns that each individual has with the intention of facilitating an agreement.
Attorney Kelsey has been advocating on behalf of clients for years as a family law trial attorney, and is also a trained family law mediator in Massachusetts. Should you have any questions about individual representation or mediation, contact Attorney Justin L. Kelsey, or call 508.655.5980 to schedule a free one hour initial consultation.
The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article referenced in this post can be found with a subscription at www.masslawyersweekly.com.
Special thanks to Christopher Boylan of Walter A. Costello, Jr. & Associates for his assistance in this post.
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Court. Show all posts
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Access to Justice: New Procedures in Probate & Family Court
On March 15, 2010, the Chief Justice of the Probate & Family Court released uniform Probate and Family Court Scheduling Practices and Procedures.
These procedures include certain requirements intended to promote predictability and uniformity of practice for the scheduling of all types of hearings in the Probate and Family Courts throughout the Commonwealth. The practices include mandatory scheduling of a next event and other requirements intended to keep cases moving forward.
One of the changes is to the Motion scheduling practice. Although some courts, such as Plymouth Probate & Family Court, previously allowed for scheduling of Motions at the discretion of the litigants (within the Notice rules), other courts, such as Norfolk, Middlesex and Suffolk Counties, only allowed for scheduling of Motions by the rules of their individual trial departments. According to the Chief Justice's new procedures:
"There shall be no restrictions on the number or timing of motions which
may be filed except as set forth above regardless of the nature of the underlying
complaint..."
The exception is that the First Justices shall have discretion, with the approval of the Chief Justice, to limit the marking of Motions. "Any limitation on motion sessions approved by the Chief Justice shall be posted in the division (Registry of Probate and courtrooms) and on the web site of the Probate and Family Court."
This should result in greater consistency throughout the counties, something probably more noticeable to attorneys than individual litigants. In the counties that used to limit the number of Motions, this will also result in getting into court more quickly (usually something desired by clients).
There is a downside though as well. At a recent Motion session in Suffolk which I attended with a client, there were 76 Motions scheduled. Luckily we were number three, but I would hate to be number 76. Although you might get into court a week or two before you otherwise would have, you should plan to be there all day.
Hopefully, as the courts get used to the new system these overloaded days will be less likely. Either way, I believe consistency of procedure among the counties is a good thing. Access to Justice should be the same no matter where you live.
These procedures include certain requirements intended to promote predictability and uniformity of practice for the scheduling of all types of hearings in the Probate and Family Courts throughout the Commonwealth. The practices include mandatory scheduling of a next event and other requirements intended to keep cases moving forward.
One of the changes is to the Motion scheduling practice. Although some courts, such as Plymouth Probate & Family Court, previously allowed for scheduling of Motions at the discretion of the litigants (within the Notice rules), other courts, such as Norfolk, Middlesex and Suffolk Counties, only allowed for scheduling of Motions by the rules of their individual trial departments. According to the Chief Justice's new procedures:
"There shall be no restrictions on the number or timing of motions which
may be filed except as set forth above regardless of the nature of the underlying
complaint..."
The exception is that the First Justices shall have discretion, with the approval of the Chief Justice, to limit the marking of Motions. "Any limitation on motion sessions approved by the Chief Justice shall be posted in the division (Registry of Probate and courtrooms) and on the web site of the Probate and Family Court."
This should result in greater consistency throughout the counties, something probably more noticeable to attorneys than individual litigants. In the counties that used to limit the number of Motions, this will also result in getting into court more quickly (usually something desired by clients).
There is a downside though as well. At a recent Motion session in Suffolk which I attended with a client, there were 76 Motions scheduled. Luckily we were number three, but I would hate to be number 76. Although you might get into court a week or two before you otherwise would have, you should plan to be there all day.
Hopefully, as the courts get used to the new system these overloaded days will be less likely. Either way, I believe consistency of procedure among the counties is a good thing. Access to Justice should be the same no matter where you live.
Monday, October 15, 2012
One Court instead of Two for Domestic Abuse Cases in Norfolk County – A Pilot Program
Beginning May 4, 2009, Norfolk County will start a pilot program involving the interdepartmental transfer of certain abuse prevention proceedings. In plain English this means that 209A Restraining Order cases opened in a District Court in Norfolk County may be transferred to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court, if there is already an action pending in that Court.
EXAMPLE: Whitney and Bobby are married and live in Dedham. One night they get into a fight and Whitney calls the police. Bobby is not arrested but is escorted from the home by the police and Whitney is provided with an emergency 209A Order for Protection from Abuse (commonly called a Restraining Order). The Restraining Order requires that both Whitney and Bobby show up at the Dedham District Court the next day to go in front of a Judge who will decide whether the Restraining Order should be extended.
After a hearing the Judge extends the Restraining Order for two months ( “a cooling off period”). That afternoon, Whitney goes to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court in Canton and files a Complaint for Divorce. Whitney also files a Motion for Temporary Orders asking a Family Court Judge to give award her custody of the children and order Bobby to pay her child support.
At the hearing on Whitney’s Motion for Temporary Orders, Bobby asks for visitation because he hasn’t seen his children since the Restraining Order went into effect. The Probate Court Judge orders physical and legal custody to Whitney with a visitation schedule for Bobby.
Under the current rules, there are now two Orders from two different Courts that are different. The problem for Bobby is that the Dedham District Court Order is the one that the police will follow. If Bobby tries to pick up his children for visitation he may be arrested unless he and/or Whitney go to the Dedham District Court and ask the Court to amend the Restraining Order.
The pilot program would give the Norfolk Probate and Family Court Judge the power to transfer the Dedham District Court 209A Restraining Order case to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court. This means that when the Family Court Judge makes a decision it will apply in both cases and amendments can be made to the Restraining Order immediately to be consistent with the Probate Court orders.
This benefits Whitney and Bobby by having only one court for them to visit, allowing for less court hearings total, and by having one Judge who can hear all issues and make decisions that are consistent and take into account both the safety concerns of Whitney and the best interest of the children.
The full language of the Order can be viewed here. Under the pilot program, the transfer can be initiated by motion by either a party or sua sponte by the Probate and Family Court judge. The parties will have an opportunity to be heard on the question of transfer.
The pilot program will be for one year and will be reviewed after six months by the Chief Justices of the Probate and Family Court and the District Court.
EXAMPLE: Whitney and Bobby are married and live in Dedham. One night they get into a fight and Whitney calls the police. Bobby is not arrested but is escorted from the home by the police and Whitney is provided with an emergency 209A Order for Protection from Abuse (commonly called a Restraining Order). The Restraining Order requires that both Whitney and Bobby show up at the Dedham District Court the next day to go in front of a Judge who will decide whether the Restraining Order should be extended.
After a hearing the Judge extends the Restraining Order for two months ( “a cooling off period”). That afternoon, Whitney goes to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court in Canton and files a Complaint for Divorce. Whitney also files a Motion for Temporary Orders asking a Family Court Judge to give award her custody of the children and order Bobby to pay her child support.
At the hearing on Whitney’s Motion for Temporary Orders, Bobby asks for visitation because he hasn’t seen his children since the Restraining Order went into effect. The Probate Court Judge orders physical and legal custody to Whitney with a visitation schedule for Bobby.
Under the current rules, there are now two Orders from two different Courts that are different. The problem for Bobby is that the Dedham District Court Order is the one that the police will follow. If Bobby tries to pick up his children for visitation he may be arrested unless he and/or Whitney go to the Dedham District Court and ask the Court to amend the Restraining Order.
The pilot program would give the Norfolk Probate and Family Court Judge the power to transfer the Dedham District Court 209A Restraining Order case to the Norfolk Probate and Family Court. This means that when the Family Court Judge makes a decision it will apply in both cases and amendments can be made to the Restraining Order immediately to be consistent with the Probate Court orders.
This benefits Whitney and Bobby by having only one court for them to visit, allowing for less court hearings total, and by having one Judge who can hear all issues and make decisions that are consistent and take into account both the safety concerns of Whitney and the best interest of the children.
The full language of the Order can be viewed here. Under the pilot program, the transfer can be initiated by motion by either a party or sua sponte by the Probate and Family Court judge. The parties will have an opportunity to be heard on the question of transfer.
The pilot program will be for one year and will be reviewed after six months by the Chief Justices of the Probate and Family Court and the District Court.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Can DCF records be used in my Custody Case?
The Court can use any credible evidence, that conforms with the rules of evidence, in making determinations about custody. The Court often has to weigh the source of the evidence as well as the content of the evidence presented. This is the same for DCF records, although there are limitations on how this information is obtained by the Court.
In a recent case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, reviewed and stayed certain informal procedures that were being used in the Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court to access the confidential information contained in Department of Children and Families records. Brantley v. Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court Department, Mass SJC-10343 (2010).
When DCF gets involved with a family it is usually an indicator that there is some danger of neglect or abuse to the children. Naturally this information could be useful for Probate and Family Court Judges to be aware of in making determinations. However, there are limitations to how DCF can share this information because of it's sensitive nature, and there are also very significant due process concerns about this information including how much hearsay it might contain and the lack of opportunity for litigants to respond to allegations. These concerns were discussed at length by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and based on those concerns, the Court ordered the Hampden division to stop using these informal procedures to talk to DCF.
The Court also urged the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court to create a standing order on this issue. A draft Standing Order is pending which provides procedures for the Court to follow when requesting information from DCF (formerly DSS), but no final order has been issued yet.
Until there is further guidance on this matter, if you want the Court to be aware of DCF actions in your custody matter, then you must file a Motion to Release with the Probate & Family Court and Subpeona the records from DCF. DCF will not release the records until the Judge rules on the Motion to Release. If you need help completing these forms you should consult with an attorney.
In a recent case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, reviewed and stayed certain informal procedures that were being used in the Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court to access the confidential information contained in Department of Children and Families records. Brantley v. Hampden Division of the Probate and Family Court Department, Mass SJC-10343 (2010).
When DCF gets involved with a family it is usually an indicator that there is some danger of neglect or abuse to the children. Naturally this information could be useful for Probate and Family Court Judges to be aware of in making determinations. However, there are limitations to how DCF can share this information because of it's sensitive nature, and there are also very significant due process concerns about this information including how much hearsay it might contain and the lack of opportunity for litigants to respond to allegations. These concerns were discussed at length by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and based on those concerns, the Court ordered the Hampden division to stop using these informal procedures to talk to DCF.
The Court also urged the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court to create a standing order on this issue. A draft Standing Order is pending which provides procedures for the Court to follow when requesting information from DCF (formerly DSS), but no final order has been issued yet.
Until there is further guidance on this matter, if you want the Court to be aware of DCF actions in your custody matter, then you must file a Motion to Release with the Probate & Family Court and Subpeona the records from DCF. DCF will not release the records until the Judge rules on the Motion to Release. If you need help completing these forms you should consult with an attorney.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Are Gifts from my Family considered Income by the Family Court?
The following is a joint Blog Post prepared by Justin Kelsey, Esq. of Kelsey & Trask, P.C. (co-author of Scaling the Summit: A Family Law Blog) and Danielle G. Van Ess, Esq. of DGVE law, LLC (author of the Massachusetts, Wills, Trusts, and Estates blog).
The Judges in the Probate & Family Court have a lot of discretion to decide what constitutes income when the Court is considering child support or alimony.
According to M.G.L. c. 208 s. 34, the court can consider "amount and sources of income... and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income" when dividing property or awarding alimony. This language obviously leaves a lot of leeway for the court to consider all "sources of income" including potential "future" income.
Similarly, the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines indicate that the court can consider "gross income from whatever source regardless of whether that income is recognized by the Internal Revenue Code or reported to the Internal Revenue Service or state Department of Revenue or other taxing authority." The specific list of possible income ends with "any other form of income or compensation not specifically itemized above." Just like with alimony, this broad language provides the Court with discretion to include family gifts as income, especially if the gifts are regular. For example, this could include the right to withdraw funds from an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) established by parents to reduce estate tax liability and made available to their children as evidenced by regular Crummey notice letters.
The MA Appeals Court recently confirmed this in an unpublished decision holding that a Judge did not abuse his discretion by attributing income to a father based on family gifts, and using that attributed income to calculate child support. DiMambro v. DiMambro (Lawyers Weekly No. 82-281-10) (3 pages) (Appeals Court – Unpublished) (No. 09-P-1387) (Nov. 9, 2010).
“Future income” under the alimony statute, or “attributable income” under the child support guidelines may also include cash gifts such as annual gifts according to the gift tax exclusion amount, which is presently $13,000 per year per individual or $26,000 per year for a married couple to another person.
As the courts may consider all sources of income, particularly where one’s adult child is separated or divorcing it may be best to leave real property (such as a home or vacation home), gifts, and inheritances to one’s adult children in protected trusts rather than outright to attempt to ensure that those gifts will be preserved for one’s child and any grandchildren and not be subject to claims of the child’s ex-spouse. Parents of adult children should also be very cautious about putting their adult child’s name on their real property or bank accounts for purposes of convenience and assistance with management as those assets may become assets of the child as well and subject to claims in bankruptcy or divorce.
Given the Judge's broad discretion in this area, families should discuss gifts and the impact of those gifts with their attorneys to ensure they understand all the relevantthose gifts might have.
The Judges in the Probate & Family Court have a lot of discretion to decide what constitutes income when the Court is considering child support or alimony.
According to M.G.L. c. 208 s. 34, the court can consider "amount and sources of income... and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income" when dividing property or awarding alimony. This language obviously leaves a lot of leeway for the court to consider all "sources of income" including potential "future" income.
Similarly, the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines indicate that the court can consider "gross income from whatever source regardless of whether that income is recognized by the Internal Revenue Code or reported to the Internal Revenue Service or state Department of Revenue or other taxing authority." The specific list of possible income ends with "any other form of income or compensation not specifically itemized above." Just like with alimony, this broad language provides the Court with discretion to include family gifts as income, especially if the gifts are regular. For example, this could include the right to withdraw funds from an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) established by parents to reduce estate tax liability and made available to their children as evidenced by regular Crummey notice letters.
The MA Appeals Court recently confirmed this in an unpublished decision holding that a Judge did not abuse his discretion by attributing income to a father based on family gifts, and using that attributed income to calculate child support. DiMambro v. DiMambro (Lawyers Weekly No. 82-281-10) (3 pages) (Appeals Court – Unpublished) (No. 09-P-1387) (Nov. 9, 2010).
“Future income” under the alimony statute, or “attributable income” under the child support guidelines may also include cash gifts such as annual gifts according to the gift tax exclusion amount, which is presently $13,000 per year per individual or $26,000 per year for a married couple to another person.
As the courts may consider all sources of income, particularly where one’s adult child is separated or divorcing it may be best to leave real property (such as a home or vacation home), gifts, and inheritances to one’s adult children in protected trusts rather than outright to attempt to ensure that those gifts will be preserved for one’s child and any grandchildren and not be subject to claims of the child’s ex-spouse. Parents of adult children should also be very cautious about putting their adult child’s name on their real property or bank accounts for purposes of convenience and assistance with management as those assets may become assets of the child as well and subject to claims in bankruptcy or divorce.
Given the Judge's broad discretion in this area, families should discuss gifts and the impact of those gifts with their attorneys to ensure they understand all the relevantthose gifts might have.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Can the Family Court amend a Restraining Order from the District Court?
That pilot program ended 12 months later and was not renewed, which means that the courts do not currently allow the transfer of a 209A Restraining Order case from district court to the probate and family court. This raises the question:
What happens if there is a 209A Restraining Order in a district court and a Divorce case between the same parties in the Probate and Family Court?
If there are no children in the case, the Probate and Family Court is unlikely to concern themselves with the Restraining Order case because the divorce is primarily dealing with financial issues which don't typically require direct communication between the parties.
However, in cases with children, there are many issues which can require parents to communicate and or have contact for visitation transitions. Often-times restraining orders will initially include the children but later be modified to allow for parenting time. In many cases of domestic violence both children an spouses require protection from an abuser. However, there are also many cases which only involve threats or allegations relating to the spouses and the children are not involved in the allegations.
When an initial restraining order is entered in a District Court and the parties are also involved in a case at the Probate & Family Court relating to the custody or visitation with the minor children, it is likely that the Family Court Judge will be asked to enter a visitation plan. The problem arises when the arrangements for visitation violate the existing restraining order. In these cases the restraining order needs to be amended so there is not a conflict with the Family Court order. The Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Orders (rev. Sep 2011) contain specific procedures for the Family Court to follow in these instances.
Pursuant to ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 96-1, the Family Court Judge can exercise special jurisdiction over the district court case for the specific purpose of amending the restraining order to match the provisions of the custody order. Once the Family Court Judge has chosen to exercise this special jurisdiction, which requires that the Plaintiff on the restraining order have notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court must follow the following procedure:
The Probation department in the modifying court shall cause the modified order to be transmitted by facsimile to the Probation department of the issuing court promptly to enable the Probation staff of the issuing court to enter the order into the Registry on the day on which the modified order is issued. Upon receipt of the modified order, the Probation department in the issuing court shall promptly provide a copy of the modified order to the staff or the Clerk or Clerk-Magistrate of the issuing court, who shall promptly docket and file the modified order. The Register of Probate in the modifying court shall cause the modified order to be mailed to the Clerk or ClerkMagistrate of the issuing court no later than three days after the modified order is issued.Given how understaffed the courts currently are this is probably easier said than done, and if you are a party to such an action you should make sure that the restraining order is updated with both the issuing court and the police department before you act on the modified order. Otherwise you risk being charged with violation of the restraining order.
For more information about restraining orders in Massachusetts visit our new Restraining Order website, or schedule a free 1-hour consultation.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
What if you were never born?
No, this is not a post about "It's a Wonderful Life". But I will tell you a story about a man who was told by the Town of Carver that he did not exist.
While in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court last Tuesday, June 30, 2009, waiting for the Judge to call my client's Motion for hearing, I was listening to the presentations made by other litigants in Court for hearing on that day.
One of these litigants was a quiet man. He was accompanied by his Wife, who did most of the talking for him. She explained to the Judge that her husband had requested a copy of his Birth Certificate from the Town of Carver only to discover that they had no such record. This was puzzling to her and her husband because he had grown up in Carver and lived much of his life there.
He had a binder of evidence including school records, an Affidavit of one of the women present at his birth, and even military records. This man, who the Town of Carver didn't think existed, had even served our country.
Although most of you are unlikely to encounter this type of existential dilemma, I thought I'd share with you the solution. If you are ever told that your birth record has been destroyed (and you were not recently visited by your guardian angel), then you should put together just such a binder and go to the Probate and Family Court in the County in which you were born. You will have to file a Complaint in Equity under M.G.L. Chapter 46 Section 4, and after providing notice to the clerk of said Town, you will be able to present to the Judge proof that you exist (other than your being there, of course).
This is, incidentally, the same process used for mothers who give birth to a child without a physician or hospital medical officer in attendance, if the clerk of their Town refuses to record the birth. Although, that situation is probably more likely, it's not quite as interesting as the man from Carver who was never born.
While in the Plymouth Probate and Family Court last Tuesday, June 30, 2009, waiting for the Judge to call my client's Motion for hearing, I was listening to the presentations made by other litigants in Court for hearing on that day.
One of these litigants was a quiet man. He was accompanied by his Wife, who did most of the talking for him. She explained to the Judge that her husband had requested a copy of his Birth Certificate from the Town of Carver only to discover that they had no such record. This was puzzling to her and her husband because he had grown up in Carver and lived much of his life there.
He had a binder of evidence including school records, an Affidavit of one of the women present at his birth, and even military records. This man, who the Town of Carver didn't think existed, had even served our country.
Although most of you are unlikely to encounter this type of existential dilemma, I thought I'd share with you the solution. If you are ever told that your birth record has been destroyed (and you were not recently visited by your guardian angel), then you should put together just such a binder and go to the Probate and Family Court in the County in which you were born. You will have to file a Complaint in Equity under M.G.L. Chapter 46 Section 4, and after providing notice to the clerk of said Town, you will be able to present to the Judge proof that you exist (other than your being there, of course).
This is, incidentally, the same process used for mothers who give birth to a child without a physician or hospital medical officer in attendance, if the clerk of their Town refuses to record the birth. Although, that situation is probably more likely, it's not quite as interesting as the man from Carver who was never born.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
What do you think of Hampshire County's "Special Procedure's for Cases Involving Children"
On April 7, 2010, the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Courts in Massachusetts, Paula M. Carey, signed Standing Order 1-10: Special Procedures for Cases Involving Children. That order sets out the details for a pilot program in the Hampshire Division of the Probate and Family Court. The pilot program is intended to provide special services and requirements related to the resolution of child-related issues in any case involving children (such as Divorce, Separate Support, Paternity, Support/Custody/Visitation, Modification, Contempt, Guardianship and Termination of Parental Rights cases).
The order requires, among other things, that attorneys and parents/care-givers attempt to solve parenting related problems before seeking the assistance of the court, and to conduct themselves in a way that recognizes the unique issues involved in child-related cases.
More specifically, the order requires that parties and their attorneys participate in an "Introductory Meeting", no later than 45 days after the filing of Answer and/or prior to any Motion hearing. Essentially, the court is requiring a 4-way (similar to that required prior to a Pre-Trial) to try and force parties to work out parenting issues prior to presenting them to the Court.
The order also encourages people to seek the assistance of other professionals as necessary to assist in the proper development of parenting and care-giver plans.
These requirements will increase initial attorney's fees and costs to clients. The benefits to the children, however, could be substantial by focusing early on how a court case (such as a divorce case) affects the children, and trying to address these issues early.
For further information on this program, its origins and its goals readThe Origins of a Child Focused Family Court Model. written by Gail L. Perlman, the First Justice of the Hampshire Division of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. The article is available on page 3 of the Spring 2010 issue of the Family Mediation Quarterly.
The order requires, among other things, that attorneys and parents/care-givers attempt to solve parenting related problems before seeking the assistance of the court, and to conduct themselves in a way that recognizes the unique issues involved in child-related cases.
More specifically, the order requires that parties and their attorneys participate in an "Introductory Meeting", no later than 45 days after the filing of Answer and/or prior to any Motion hearing. Essentially, the court is requiring a 4-way (similar to that required prior to a Pre-Trial) to try and force parties to work out parenting issues prior to presenting them to the Court.
The order also encourages people to seek the assistance of other professionals as necessary to assist in the proper development of parenting and care-giver plans.
These requirements will increase initial attorney's fees and costs to clients. The benefits to the children, however, could be substantial by focusing early on how a court case (such as a divorce case) affects the children, and trying to address these issues early.
For further information on this program, its origins and its goals readThe Origins of a Child Focused Family Court Model. written by Gail L. Perlman, the First Justice of the Hampshire Division of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. The article is available on page 3 of the Spring 2010 issue of the Family Mediation Quarterly.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Should I bring my new Significant Other or my Children to Family Court with me?
In most cases bringing your new significant other or your children to court with you is a bad idea.
Bringing a Significant Other:
In most cases having a third party in the courthouse (especially a significant other) inflames the other party and makes settlement less likely. While this is not always the case, the risk of making settlement more difficult is usually not worth the benefit of having a third party there.
Also, court is relatively boring. Your significant other will be able to wait with you in the courthouse but he/she will not be able to attend any family service meetings (i.e. required mediation prior to the court hearing). Court involves a lot of waiting around and there is usually something better that people can be doing with their time. For these reasons I usually recommend that clients come alone to court, but in the end it is your call.
Bringing your Children:
Whether or not the hearing involves your children bringing them to court with you is a bad idea for numerous reasons.
1. There is a saying that in criminal court we see bad people acting their best, and in family court we see good people acting their worst. Family court is a stressful place and oftentimes involves very personal and emotional issues. Exposing your children to this is unnecessary and can be damaging psychologically.
2. There is nothing for children to do in the courthouse. These buildings are not designed with children in mind and are not fun places to be. Your children will be able to wait with you in the courthouse but they will not be able to attend any family service meetings (i.e. required mediation prior to the court hearing) and they are typically not allowed in the courtrooms. Court involves a lot of waiting around and children will be very bored.
3. In the event the case does involve your children, it is even more damaging to have them in court. Children pick up on more than most people give them credit for, and knowing that a court hearing is happening (never-mind being there) can be very stressful for children. Children will take responsibility for the outcome even though they have no control over it and blame themselves if their parent is unhappy. Don't place this burden on your child.
4. Finally, there is no added value to having your children in court. In the unlikely event that the Judge wants family service to speak to your children, you will be given the opportunity to come back with them. Having them there at the time of hearing exposes them to unnecessary stress without any potential benefit.
For more information about best practices to protect your children from the detrimental affects of court actions between parents read the following brochure: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.
Bringing a Significant Other:
In most cases having a third party in the courthouse (especially a significant other) inflames the other party and makes settlement less likely. While this is not always the case, the risk of making settlement more difficult is usually not worth the benefit of having a third party there.
Also, court is relatively boring. Your significant other will be able to wait with you in the courthouse but he/she will not be able to attend any family service meetings (i.e. required mediation prior to the court hearing). Court involves a lot of waiting around and there is usually something better that people can be doing with their time. For these reasons I usually recommend that clients come alone to court, but in the end it is your call.
Bringing your Children:
Whether or not the hearing involves your children bringing them to court with you is a bad idea for numerous reasons.
1. There is a saying that in criminal court we see bad people acting their best, and in family court we see good people acting their worst. Family court is a stressful place and oftentimes involves very personal and emotional issues. Exposing your children to this is unnecessary and can be damaging psychologically.
2. There is nothing for children to do in the courthouse. These buildings are not designed with children in mind and are not fun places to be. Your children will be able to wait with you in the courthouse but they will not be able to attend any family service meetings (i.e. required mediation prior to the court hearing) and they are typically not allowed in the courtrooms. Court involves a lot of waiting around and children will be very bored.
3. In the event the case does involve your children, it is even more damaging to have them in court. Children pick up on more than most people give them credit for, and knowing that a court hearing is happening (never-mind being there) can be very stressful for children. Children will take responsibility for the outcome even though they have no control over it and blame themselves if their parent is unhappy. Don't place this burden on your child.
4. Finally, there is no added value to having your children in court. In the unlikely event that the Judge wants family service to speak to your children, you will be given the opportunity to come back with them. Having them there at the time of hearing exposes them to unnecessary stress without any potential benefit.
For more information about best practices to protect your children from the detrimental affects of court actions between parents read the following brochure: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)