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.

Child Support Case Result

October, 2012:

Attorney Morris filed a motion to register and modify a foreign judgment on mother’s behalf. The purpose of this motion was to register an out-of-state judgment awarding her child support. After decree is registered in Rhode Island, modification substantially increases the amount that she is entitled to receive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Family Court Case Results & Testimonial

Family Law Case Results and Testimonial April, 2012: 

Attorney Morris represented father in filing his miscellaneous petition for custody, placement, and support. 

Mother was refusing to allow child to visit overnight with father.

After hearing, father granted joint legal custody, liberal specific visitation including overnights. 

Testimonial below:

“I could not have asked for better representation. Prior to choosing an attorney, I had consulted with several about my case. Attorney Morris' confidence, sincerity, honesty, and track record won me over. I was impressed by her swift and thorough knowledge of my case as well as how quickly she responded to my calls and emails.

Her knowledge and tenacity were evident as we attempted to negotiate with my son's mother and her attorney and I believe that it was these traits along with her treating my case as if she were fighting for her own child that won me additional time with my son in the form of extra days, overnights, and shared transport.

THANK YOU SO MUCH ELISHA!

Signed,

a VERY HAPPY father”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Modify Granted in RI Family Court

Family Court Victory in Motion to Modify

October, 2012 

Motion to register and modify a foreign judgment. 

Mother files motion to register an out-of-state judgment awarding her child support.

After decree is registered in Rhode Island, modification substantially increases the amount which she is entitled to receive.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

More Mothers Paying Child Support Than Fathers Says Report

More Mothers Paying Child Support

In the case of child custody and child support, more and more fathers are obtaining physical placement of their children, leaving more and more mothers in the position of having to pay child support for their minor children. The rise in this trend began with the decline of stay-at-home moms as more and more women were forced to enter the workforce to help balance the housing budget within the marriage.

As women were lured away from the nest, men were no longer the sole bread-winner, creating a gap in childcare at home, and the massive growth in the child care industry in general. With men reaching the peak in their careers and able to work less hours, while still making substantially more money than women in similar position, this left more fathers able to be home for the children.

Many women were then left with the decision to continue in the careers to which they had devoted a good portion of their lives, or resign themselves to working at less demanding jobs in order to balance out the parenting roles and be home as well. As divorce rates climbed in 2008, another trend emerged involving more moms paying child support, with increases in the amounts they were required to pay, as well as fewer fathers on the opposite side.

More Moms Paying Child Support Say Top Divorce Attorneys

Latest National Survey also Reveals Increase in Payment Amounts

CHICAGO, IL, October 1, 2008 — More women are paying child support these days, according to the latest survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). In all, 55% of the respondents have cited an increase in the number of mothers who have been assigned to make child support payments over the past five years. Additionally, 42% of the divorce attorneys have seen the size of overall payment amounts rise during the same period of time.

“The changes in our society are almost always reflected in divorce courts and the legal system. The issues involved with child custody payments are certainly not an exception,” says James Hennenhoefer, president of the AAML. “If one spouse is better suited to provide financial care, it is in the best interests of the court and all parties involved to put the needs of the child first.

Interestingly enough, results from the survey revealed that only 1% of AAML members have seen an increase in fathers making child support payments during the past five years. There was a response total of 44% who noticed no difference.

In addition to the question regarding which party is now making child support payments, the divorce lawyers have also cited changes in the size of those payments. Overall, 42% of the respondents said that the amount a spouse must pay has actually increased over the last five years. Only 14% said the payments have gotten smaller, while 44% have cited no change in payment totals during the five year time frame.

Read the full article HERE

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Support Reform

Family Law - Child Support Issues

Several states within the United States are in the midst of child support reform debates. The main ideals and criteria on the table have more to do with fairness between the adults, and far less to do with what may be considered 'fair' to the child.

If child support reforms are to have any lasting value, they must always encompass the needs of the child first. In this country where having children is typically not seen as a financial decision, the attitudes of the adults involved, it would seem, is what really needs to undergo radical reform.

On the table for debate are typical waiting periods for increases and decreases in support to take effect; which are governed by statutory laws and slow to change. Arguments for custodial parents who are not given increases when a non-custodial parent earns more money, are as abundant as the counter-point of non-custodial parents who are not given a decrease in support payments during periods of financial hardship or job loss.

At further issue, are concerns resulting from the involvement of the non-custodial parent with step-children, or further biological children, and mandating decreases based upon their extra obligation to the new family member(s). A major caveat in adopting this standpoint, is that the door then opens for further legislation where adults who are already living beyond their financial means or capabilities, are granted leniency for responsibilities owed to past biological offspring.

This outlook would effectively reward those parents who are merely joining with another parent to help offset the cost of raising their children together, whether or not any intimate relationship bond existed. And even in the event of intimate bonds, there needs to be some sort of inner compass at work that determines whether you are able to actually afford more children without neglecting those you already have. This kind of reform would send a rather clear message to biological children of divorce that their needs are not as important as the needs of either the adult, the step-children, or any new biological children. This does not seem to be in the best interest of the child at all.

Divorce, child custody, and child support in this country do need to be re-evaluated, but not from the perspective of the adults involved. Teaching adults to live within their means, learn self-respect and loving behavior and habits, and how to determine whether another child is something they can feasibly afford, needs to be the main focus in child support reform. When taken in combination with the actual monetary needs of the child, ie. how much food costs per week, what portion of the living expenses can be allocated for the child, school, healthcare and activities, etc., this type of reform would benefit everyone involved.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.