3 Things You Need to Know About a Rhode Island Divorce

Divorce is divorce, right? 

Not exactly. Although there are basic similarities from state to state, each state still has its own process. In Rhode Island for instance, you typically go to court first and then work out an agreement, whereas in Massachusetts, you are required to work out your agreement, then you will be given a court date.

So what are a few things particular to your RI divorce?

Equitable Distribution

This is a nice way of saying that if you and your spouse cannot reach an agreement regarding the division of your marital property, the court can and may decide for you. In reaching their decision, they will consider the length of your marriage, the income levels of you and your spouse, the contributions that you have each made to your marital assets, education and job skills, whether either of you took time off from a career to care for children at home, and many other factors. If you are having trouble deciding how to divide your marital property, you should seek the advice of a qualified family court attorney.

Custody, Visitation, and Placement of Minor Children

Again, in a situation where neither you or your spouse can reach an agreement concerning the physical placement of your children, the court will decide based upon what will be in the best interest of the child. Custody (sole or joint) will typically determine the placement of the child. The parent with custody will have physical placement, and the other parent, the non-custodial parent, will be given reasonable rights of visitation. In every instance, the well-being of the child should be the main focus of negotiating parties. If you need help determining what would be in the best interest of your child, you should ask your divorce attorney for their advice.

Health Insurance Coverage Continuation

This is a very complicated area of not only divorce law, but also the RI General Laws and the Federal Regulations known as the COBRA laws. There is no simple answer as to whether or not your former spouse is required to continue to provide health coverage for you. Researching your current employer's health plan, as well as your spouse's health coverage, is a good starting point. Because these discussions tend to involve an additional financial burden for one party or the other, discussions should be at least supervised by a Divorce Mediator, if not a RI Family Court Lawyer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Social Media Technology Called Into Play in Family Court Cases

Bedridden Man Uses Skype to Testify Against Wife

By Jacob Gershman

Seeking an extension of a protection order against his estranged wife, an elderly Illinois man needed to show up to court and testify. The problem was that he had suffered a stroke and felt too weak to get out of bed. But he was able to testify anyway — thanks to Skype and an iPad.

Emil Kogan, according to his attorney, answered questions from his bedroom by talking into his laptop. On the other end of the video call was his attorney, who brought her iPad into the courtroom so the judge and the other lawyer could see him.

There were some technical glitches. It took a while for Mr. Kogan, who was assisted by another former wife, to lower the lid of his laptop and get the camera to focus on his face — not the wall above his head. “They didn’t quite know how the camera worked,” his attorney, Marie Fahnert, told Law Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Motion to Change Custody Family Court Case Results

Family Law Case Result February, 2012

The Law Office of John E. MacDonald files an ex parte emergency motion to change custody and placement.  In that case, we represented the out-of-state father.  Child resided in Rhode Island with mother.   

Ex parte motion granted on a temporary basis, after hearing, father granted sole custody and physical placement in Massachusetts, with supervised visits to mother.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Mother Gets Sole Custody in RI Family Court

Family Court Victory for Attorney Elisha Morris

August, 2012

Motion for sole legal custody.  

Pursuant to divorce decree, parties were awarded joint legal custody. 

Mother granted physical placement of the minor child. 

The Law Office of John E. MacDonald represented mother, who, after several contempt hearings and post-final motions, was awarded sole legal custody with visits at her discretion and pursuant to the recommendations of the child’s counselor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Motion to Suspend Visitation in RI Family Court

Family Court Win for Elisha Morris

September, 2012:

The Law Office of John E. MacDonald represented the father in defending against a family court restraining order as well as a motion to suspend his visitation with the minor child. 

Results: 

Family Court Restraining Order: DISMISSED
Motion to Suspend Visitation: DENIED

All visits with child (unsupervised) to resume immediately! 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this post or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John E. MacDonald at 401.421.1440.

To learn more about John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Family Court Divorce and Custody Client Testimonial

Elisha Morris Divorce Testimonial

“I have been a client of Elisha Morris from 2005 thru the present. Though my divorce and subsequent custody case has been very trying and heart wrenching at times, I have always been strengthened by the support and professionalism of Elisha Morris and John MacDonald.

Having been granted custody of my 2 daughters in 2001, something unheard of for a father, our struggle continues today.

I am very lucky to have Elisha representing my family. She has been dedicated and relentless in her quest to make sure we are treated fairly in a family court system that sometimes is not. I have never felt like a client with a lawyer but a person being represented by a friend and I recommend Elisha to my friends because I know they are in the best hands possible.”

 – Kevin, Divorce and Child Custody Client

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Child Welfare False Child Abuse Accusation

False Accusation of Child Abuse

Parents Have Case for False Child-Abuser Label
By ERIN MCAULEY

HARRISBURG, PA. (CN) - Child-welfare workers cannot dismiss allegations that they falsely accused parents of abusing a 4-month-old who had in fact sustained injuries from a stroke and congenital rickets, a federal judge ruled.
     Jamel Billups and Jacqueline Rosario sued Franklin County and a host of Pennsylvania child-services entities six months ago for civil rights violations. The black couple claims that the Child Safety team at Penn State Hershey Medical Center accused them of child abuse when their daughter, L.B., suffered a stroke and showed signs of rickets on Oct. 19, 2009.
     Pennsylvania then allegedly seized L.B. and her 2-year-old brother, T.R., and sent them to foster homes. Jamel was jailed 414 days for a crime he did not commit, according to the complaint.
     The hospital, county, Office of Children, Youth and Families and Chambersburg Borough each filed separately with their individual employees to dismiss the claims.
     Chief U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane dismissed most claims last week, but said the Billups can proceed with due-process claims against Franklin County and two of its employees, Kari Coccagna and Minnie Tuner.
     Claims against the hospital and its staff failed largely for lack of evidence. Kane said they also improperly relied on Jamel Billup's incarceration and criminal prosecution. "The court finds that plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that the medical center defendants, in examining L.B. and rendering conclusions on her injuries, 'consciously disregarded a great risk that there had been no abuse,'" Kane wrote, quoting precedent.
     Kathryn Crowell, the doctor who allegedly gave false incriminating testimony, has immunity from civil damages for her testimony, the 51-page decision states.
     Though the Billips say the child-abuse charges stemmed from the hospital's presumptions, the court found there was "reasonable and articulable evidence" of abuse.
     "Parent's rights to the care, custody and control of their children 'does not include a right to remain free from child abuse investigations,'" Kane wrote, quoting 3rd Circuit precedent. Parents "are not entitled to a presumption of innocence during the pendency of a child abuse investigation," she added.
     The Billups also failed to allege a discriminatory policy in the hospital's alleged treatment of staff members for unapproved testimony or reports. If a doctor's opinion does not align with that of the hospital, that worker is allegedly barred from identifying the hospital as his employer, minimizing the credence that their testimony can achieve.
     Kane also dismissed claims against the child-welfare office as duplicative of the claims against the county.
     Social workers Kari Coccanga and Minnie Tuner do not have immunity, however, from claims that they coerced the Billups into signing a "voluntary safety plan," which provided for unannounced home visits and forbade one-on-one time between the father and his children.
     Kane upheld due-process claims against Franklin County over the voluntary safety plan, but the county is not liable for failure to train and injunctive relief claims.
     Two other social workers, Tammie Lay and Dawn Watson, persuaded the judge to dismiss claims that they failed to properly conduct their own "independent medical non-presumption tainted burden shifting investigation."
     Chambersburg Borough and its employees dodged liability because the Billups' "claims do not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process," the judge found.

Child Support, Not Just for Dad’s Anymore

More Women Paying Child Support

At one time in the Family Court system, you would have been hard-pressed to find a father with custody of their children after a divorce. It was almost a carte blanche fact that women, mothers, would end up with custody of the children in any divorce situation. In fact, if a woman didn’t end up with custody, there had to be something drastically wrong with the home environment; because judges loathed taking children from their mothers.

Like everything however, situations and criteria change over the years, and with more women than ever now having to enter the work force along-side their male companions, they are not necessarily the automatic choice anymore for custodial parent of the minor children.

In a sad and ironic twist, women, who entered the work force initially to help support their families when it became obvious that two incomes were needed often just for basic survival, have now eliminated themselves as sole custody winners in the battles for their children by this very behavior.

In the past, it was understood that a man would leave the house, often early in the morning, to work all day, and return late at night. This left him very little time to be available for the child. With the advances of women into careers and the workforce, more and more children were seeing daycare personnel more than they saw their own parents even while their parents were married. Judge’s consider this time constraint now when deciding which parent will have custody of the children.

Additional considerations are also made for the basic criteria of healthy home environment, and financial ability to support the children; though time available to devote to the child’s care has become a major factor in most custody decisions, forcing women to re-evaluate their roles as matriarch of their families and very often having no choice as to be allowed the luxury of choosing their children over their careers, means they no longer can support them financially anyway.

If you are entering into a divorce or custody situation with your spouse or partner, contact Aggressive Legal Services for advice and an appointment.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

‘Best Interest of the Child’ Still the Golden Rule

Child Custody Issues

The misconception that a child over the age of 14 will be able to tell the court which parent they want to live is an unsupported rumor for the most part. Family Court Judges uphold the tenet that the child will be placed with the parent who is most able, capable, and willing, to provide the most solid foundation and healthy home environment for the child.

Older children may be allowed to have a share in the discussion, and voice their preferences, however, ultimately, the decision will rest in the hands of the court, and the applicable guidelines will be followed in terms of financial ability, as well as whether the custodial parent will be available for the child at regular intervals of time.

Factors under consideration in determining where the best placement for any child involved in custody matters will be remain the stability of the home environment, the relationship the child has with each parent, any set routines or practices that are upheld within the child’s environment, living conditions, parental fitness, and then, perhaps, the preferences of the child.

Although the age of the child does not matter in some cases, as a judge may consider a younger child more mature and therefor their request would carry more weight in deciding where they are placed.

Likewise, judges will consider the child’s motivation for requesting placement with a particular parent. Have they been promised rewards for requesting to live with the parent? Is there a situation where the child perceives the parent as unable to care for themselves and needing their help? In particular, with teenagers, judges are concerned with the level of supervision in the home, as many children at this age are looking for the environment with the least supervision; something the judge will be wanting to oppose in their decision.

There is no cut and dry standard for deciding custody and placement issues of minor children. Each case is treated individually and handled according to the circumstances and situations that present themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Lower Interest Rate on Child Support in MA

Child Support Issues

A current decision mandated by Massachusetts lawmakers reduces the interest and penalties on any support arrears owed by non-custodial parents by 50 percent, the article below states.

A unique study performed by the Urban Institute recently discovered that in states where there is no interest or penalty for late payments, support payments increased by six times, compared to those states who do impose penalties showing an increase in arrears instead.
The full release follows below.

Massachusetts' Interest Rate on Late Child Support Reduced 50 Percent

After advocacy from fathers' and family organizations, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) is reducing the interest rate for past-due child support by 50 percent. The modification decision was made after a DOR Hearing on Reducing Interest on Overdue Child Support.

At the hearing, members of Fathers and Families, an organization that seeks family court reform to support equal rights and responsibilities for mothers and fathers, presented personal stories and empirical information on the negative effects of interest charges on past-due child support.
Challenging Child Support Interest Rates

One Fathers and Families member, John Natale, questioned why the interest rate was so high when he could refinance his mortgage at 4.65 percent. Another member, Chris Jenson, related that he once fell behind on child support by $375. After making the overdue $375 payment, he still owed $1,240 in interest and penalties, which is more than three times the amount he originally owed.

Hearing attendees also presented information on child support arrearages in states that do and do not charge interest on past-due child support. A 2007 study from the Urban Institute found that arrears in states that did not charge interest on late child support increased by six times from 1987 to 2006. In the same time period, arrears in states that did charge interest increased tenfold. This study demonstrates that charging interest on past-due child support does not reduce arrearages.

A Poverty Problem

The Urban Institute also found that arrearages often exist because the paying parent is in poverty. The organization's investigation revealed that 70 percent of all people in arrears on child support earn less than $10,000 a year. In the current economic downturn with high unemployment rates, it is challenging for some people to make child support payments; adding penalties and charging high interest rates makes it even more difficult.

The lowered interest rate on overdue child support in Massachusetts will help parents pay and catch up on child support. If you have questions about child support or how the interest rate change may affect you, contact a child support attorney in your area.

Copyright at Massachusetts Family Law Group

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.

Custody Dispute Issue of Parental Alienation

Family Law Issues

There isn't a lot of concern outwardly expressed about the behavior of parental alienation, yet it is a very real and accurate description of a pervasive form of child abuse typically displayed by parents going through a divorce or custody battle.

According to Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D. and author of Divorce Casualties: Protecting your Children from Parental Alienation,” the definition of this syndrome as something that occurs almost exclusively during the process of child custody disputes. The syndrome gets its name from the fact that the child who is the subject of the custody matter, is often brainwashed into behaving and speaking out in a disagreeable fashion toward the other parent, without provocation or justification.

In situations where there is obvious justification, neglect or abuse by the parent in question, then parental alienation does not exist and the situation would warrant an abuse investigation instead. However, in many child custody matters, one parent will launch a confusing and controlling campaign aimed at turning the child against the other parent so as to solidify them gaining exclusive or sole custody of the child.

The motive of the instigating parent has both conscious and unconscious roots, and the child may even have motives that are linked to the same instant gratification desires inherent in all children who are left without competent parental guidance. The process has disastrous effects on the child, and can often rope the uninvolved parent into the arena as well in an attempt to counter-act the damage being done by the instigating party.

It is important to remember that parental alienation is a form of child abuse and brainwashing, and without justification of actual child abuse from one party to another that would substantiate the alienation of a child from their biological parent, must be dealt with as soon as the behavior is suspected in the other parent or the minor child. If you suspect someone of parental alienation, make it your priority to discuss the situation with your divorce and custody attorney immediately.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Criminal Defense, Divorce, or Immigration Law in RI contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Lawyer John E. MacDonald at 401-421-1440.

To learn more about The Law Office of John MacDonald, please visit his website at AggressiveLegalServices.com.