And now for something completely different: A note about marital property.
The law in Missouri defines marital property to presume that any property acquired by either party is marital property regardless of how titled, unless it fits into one of the excluded categories. Those categories are:
(1) Property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or descent;
(2) Property acquired in exchange for property acquired prior to the
marriage or in exchange for property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or
descent;
(3) Property acquired by a spouse after a decree of legal separation;
(4) Property excluded by valid written agreement of the parties; and
(5) The increase in value of property acquired prior to the marriage or
pursuant to subdivisions (1) to (4) of this subsection, unless marital assets
including labor, have contributed to such increases and then only to the
extent of such contributions.
Note, that the statute says:
3. All property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and
prior to a decree of legal separation or dissolution of marriage is presumed
to be marital property regardless of whether title is held individually or by
the spouses in some form of co-ownership such as joint tenancy, tenancy in
common, tenancy by the entirety, and community property. The presumption of
marital property is overcome by a showing that the property was acquired by a
method listed in subsection 2 of this section.
The moral of the story? If you own it and you are married, it is marital property unless it fits into one of the exclusionary provisions, so it still has to be divided. When filling out the property statements, be sure you list all property. Do not tell yourself, "This is mine, it's not marital property." If you think it is "nonmarital property", list it in the "nonmarital property" section to be sure that your attorney works to make sure it is set aside to you. Make your priorities clear to your attorney.
Full disclosure, especially to your attorney, can save headaches down the road. Get everything divided in the judgment so you do not have to hire an attorney latter to sort out any lingering questions of ownership.
CC
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
College Costs
Missouri law presently provides that child support can continue to the age of 21 if the child satisfies the notice and enrollment provisions of Section 452.340 (applies to both divorce and paternity situations). This is separate from the potential obligation of the divorced or nonmarried parents having to be obligated to contribute to the cost of post-secondary education. Our courts are allowed to include separate provisions ordering parents who are not or are no longer married, to share the cost of college or post-high school education.
In talking with your attorney about an initial order, make sure you take into consideration whether any of the children will be attending college. Ask your lawyer to advocate for specific provisions establishing what each parent will pay -- one half, one third, pro rata according to income or whatever it is going to be.
If you have an old child support order and your children are getting closer to the age of attendance, check to see if your judgment includes a provision of this type. If it does not and you are the principal residential custodian, consider starting a motion to modify at least a year before your child turns 18 or finishes high school, to give the case time to conclude before the child starts college.
If you are the obligor, and your judgment contains a provision that you do not feel you can pay, consider filing a motion to modify to address the current situation.
Either way, keep these things in mind, and be aware of your financial obligations. Whether or not you think it is fair, the law does try to level the playing field for children of divorced or separated parents, who presumably would have had the help of both parents if the divorce or split had not happened.
CC
In talking with your attorney about an initial order, make sure you take into consideration whether any of the children will be attending college. Ask your lawyer to advocate for specific provisions establishing what each parent will pay -- one half, one third, pro rata according to income or whatever it is going to be.
If you have an old child support order and your children are getting closer to the age of attendance, check to see if your judgment includes a provision of this type. If it does not and you are the principal residential custodian, consider starting a motion to modify at least a year before your child turns 18 or finishes high school, to give the case time to conclude before the child starts college.
If you are the obligor, and your judgment contains a provision that you do not feel you can pay, consider filing a motion to modify to address the current situation.
Either way, keep these things in mind, and be aware of your financial obligations. Whether or not you think it is fair, the law does try to level the playing field for children of divorced or separated parents, who presumably would have had the help of both parents if the divorce or split had not happened.
CC
Friday, February 22, 2013
"Call me!"
Time and time again, my clients telephone me to report that their child's other parent will not call them. Just today, I had the same conversation: Keep track of your efforts. I'm sure we will be back in court some time, for some reason. Having a notebook full of efforts to call and find out about the child will say something to the court.
On the other hand, as the saying goes, "we can't fix stupid". In the context of custody situations, this means that a judge cannot make a parent cooperate with you. The judge can take failure to cooperate into consideration in structuring the custody arrangements, but there are certain things that any reasonable good parent will get, even if he or she does not want to talk to the other parent.
Similarly, we can't make the other parent have a good relationship with the child. We can put in a schedule of shared parenting, a basic set of rules for joint decision-making, and a whole host of standard orders about who does what, where and when. But we can't make Dad or Mom put down the remote control and look the child in the eye. We can't make the child's other parent care more about them than the new boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse.
Rita Rudner, a very funny comedienne, used to say this about dating: "I would look across the table at a guy and think, 'Is this the man that I want my kids to spend every other weekend with?'". In a way, that question says it all. When a relationship ends, the adult participants just have to ask themselves: "How can I make this work for the kids?" We can't make the situation ideal. We just have to make it as good as we can make it, and hope that the kids pull through.
Odds are, they will.
On the other hand, as the saying goes, "we can't fix stupid". In the context of custody situations, this means that a judge cannot make a parent cooperate with you. The judge can take failure to cooperate into consideration in structuring the custody arrangements, but there are certain things that any reasonable good parent will get, even if he or she does not want to talk to the other parent.
Similarly, we can't make the other parent have a good relationship with the child. We can put in a schedule of shared parenting, a basic set of rules for joint decision-making, and a whole host of standard orders about who does what, where and when. But we can't make Dad or Mom put down the remote control and look the child in the eye. We can't make the child's other parent care more about them than the new boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse.
Rita Rudner, a very funny comedienne, used to say this about dating: "I would look across the table at a guy and think, 'Is this the man that I want my kids to spend every other weekend with?'". In a way, that question says it all. When a relationship ends, the adult participants just have to ask themselves: "How can I make this work for the kids?" We can't make the situation ideal. We just have to make it as good as we can make it, and hope that the kids pull through.
Odds are, they will.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Dealing with Violence
In a recent turn of events, I've come to have a larger base of
clients who are struggling to deal with domestic violence than usual.
Domestic violence with a marriage partner (or cohabitant) as victim /
perpetrator irreparably impacts all members of the family. Because of
the importance of keeping children safe and teaching them to be
functional adults, partners trying to leave a violent situation have
more consideration than partners trying to leave a marriage that has
failed but which has no violent overtones.
The partner who experiences violence must make a plan. Garner family and financial support. Have a place to go.Talk to an attorney before you leave, so that you know your rights and, if possible, have pleadings ready to sign and file shortly after you leave. As part of your planning, find out where you can go; if you live near a state line, can you go to the other state? Before / after filing? In some states, once the divorce or paternity action is filed, you can't leave the jurisdiction with the children until you have court permission to do so.
Will you be able to support yourself and the children after you leave? It is likely you will not get temporary support orders for a month or more after filing your divorce action. Can you seek administrative child support? Do you need to apply for assistance, or food stamps, or other community or government support?
Have you made a police report when the violence occurs? Do you qualify for emergency restraining orders, for yourself and/or the children?
Think about the available mental health coverage. Can you get into therapy? How will you pay for it? Is there free or sliding-scale assistance?
Might you need to go to a shelter? Is there a hotline you can call? Here is one source of help: http://www.mocadsv.org/. Seek help / guidance before you leave, but do so wisely: At a public computer, not the shared home computer that your abuser can access. Take precautionary measures. If you are in hiding and carrying a cell phone that is listed in your abuser's name, turn off the GPS feature. But if the cell phone is in YOUR NAME, leave it on: So if you call 911, they can find you! Don't leave the GPS on if your abuser has access to the account.
Domestic violence is a significant factor in our daily lives. It cuts across social, economic, racial and religious barriers. The elderly, the young, the middle-aged: anyone can be a victim. But you can stop your victimization. Make a plan; get help; get out.
The partner who experiences violence must make a plan. Garner family and financial support. Have a place to go.Talk to an attorney before you leave, so that you know your rights and, if possible, have pleadings ready to sign and file shortly after you leave. As part of your planning, find out where you can go; if you live near a state line, can you go to the other state? Before / after filing? In some states, once the divorce or paternity action is filed, you can't leave the jurisdiction with the children until you have court permission to do so.
Will you be able to support yourself and the children after you leave? It is likely you will not get temporary support orders for a month or more after filing your divorce action. Can you seek administrative child support? Do you need to apply for assistance, or food stamps, or other community or government support?
Have you made a police report when the violence occurs? Do you qualify for emergency restraining orders, for yourself and/or the children?
Think about the available mental health coverage. Can you get into therapy? How will you pay for it? Is there free or sliding-scale assistance?
Might you need to go to a shelter? Is there a hotline you can call? Here is one source of help: http://www.mocadsv.org/. Seek help / guidance before you leave, but do so wisely: At a public computer, not the shared home computer that your abuser can access. Take precautionary measures. If you are in hiding and carrying a cell phone that is listed in your abuser's name, turn off the GPS feature. But if the cell phone is in YOUR NAME, leave it on: So if you call 911, they can find you! Don't leave the GPS on if your abuser has access to the account.
Domestic violence is a significant factor in our daily lives. It cuts across social, economic, racial and religious barriers. The elderly, the young, the middle-aged: anyone can be a victim. But you can stop your victimization. Make a plan; get help; get out.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Judicial Discretion
The last two weeks brought a roller coaster of outcomes: One major custody fight lost, one major custody fight won. In the first instance, the judge's decision makes "findings" of facts as to which there is NO evidence -- not even evidence of the opposite, simply "no" evidence. I do not know where the judge got the supposed information for some of her findings, but I've listened to the tapes, and I don't think some of the things she found were even mentioned. In the other case, one judge ruled in our favor; the opposing party undertook a two-month barrage of struggles to combat effectiveness of that judge's order, and I just managed to finally get a new judge to enforce the first judge's order.
All of this leads me to ruminate on one of the most amorphous considerations about family law -- that is, "judicial discretion". In Missouri, a trial court judges the credibility and demeanor of witnesses, two loosey-goosey considerations that the court of appeals will not reverse. The trial judge also is given "due deference" in the determination of "the best interest" of the child. The court of appeals will not lightly reverse a "best interest" finding. This weighs in my favor in the second case, in the event of an appeal; but against me in the first case.
A parent feels that he or she is doing a good job of parenting and of co-parenting. He or she feels the other parent is impeding the co-parenting, or the first parent's relationship with the child. Obviously, the two parents have differing views of the impact of their conduct; or differing views of the value in co-parenting; or differing views in the value of each other. The judge is supposed to listen impartially, and make a decision.
In the first case, it seemed to us at the start of the first day of trial, that the judge did not like my client. Preliminary rulings on motions filed back and forth during the case seemed to favor the other lawyer - not even necessarily the other party. The two cases that I've referenced were in front of the same judge at the same time. Though I was the common denominator, since I prevailed in the second case, it was hard to even speculate that the judge had taken issue with ME in the first case. Given the wide difference in my client in that case, and the other party, it seemed really bizarre that the judge would favor the other party. My client is a hard-working person who supports several children and a spouse along with paying child support in the case in which I was moving for residential placement. The other party sits at home playing games on Facebook, paying bills from child support and food stamps and the generosity of that party's own mother. Which would YOU want to raise your child? Yet the judge went with the nonworking person and castigated the working person. Hard to believe.
In the second case, the SAME judge, when confronted with a nonworking parent living off benefits who absconded from the jurisdiction with my client's child in violation of a custody order, gave custody to my client. The only difference was the provability of the interference with custody / visitation. In the first instance, the other party took passive-aggressive efforts to undermine my client's role. In the second case, the other party took an overt and undeniable course of action that completely removed the child from my client's reach, traveling to California. But in the first case, the parties HAD no custody order, so the question was which party would be the best custodian, while in the second case, the question was whether the designated custodian interfered with the other party's rights. Therein lies the rub: The first case was a 'best interest' analysis, opening the full range of judicial discretion. The second case was a contempt action, leaving the court to determine only if there was an order, and if the custodial parent's actions willfully violated it. Since all custody orders in Missouri delineate procedures that must be followed for the child to be moved, the answer flowed from the undisputed facts. The judge's only real discretion was in the remedy, and since the custodial parent repeatedly testified that she intended to leave, taking the child from her was the only way to insure that my client could see his child.
In the final analysis, the hardest concept for a party to grasp is that of judicial discretion. Each party feels they are right in their recommendation to the court. Someone wins, someone loses. Only when the Court's judgment goes so far beyond the evidence as to "shock the conscience" is the court of appeals likely to reverse. That is a heavy burden to bear; but at times, it is worth taking on your shoulders, if only to say that you did everything you could do to raise your child in the best possible way.
CC
All of this leads me to ruminate on one of the most amorphous considerations about family law -- that is, "judicial discretion". In Missouri, a trial court judges the credibility and demeanor of witnesses, two loosey-goosey considerations that the court of appeals will not reverse. The trial judge also is given "due deference" in the determination of "the best interest" of the child. The court of appeals will not lightly reverse a "best interest" finding. This weighs in my favor in the second case, in the event of an appeal; but against me in the first case.
A parent feels that he or she is doing a good job of parenting and of co-parenting. He or she feels the other parent is impeding the co-parenting, or the first parent's relationship with the child. Obviously, the two parents have differing views of the impact of their conduct; or differing views of the value in co-parenting; or differing views in the value of each other. The judge is supposed to listen impartially, and make a decision.
In the first case, it seemed to us at the start of the first day of trial, that the judge did not like my client. Preliminary rulings on motions filed back and forth during the case seemed to favor the other lawyer - not even necessarily the other party. The two cases that I've referenced were in front of the same judge at the same time. Though I was the common denominator, since I prevailed in the second case, it was hard to even speculate that the judge had taken issue with ME in the first case. Given the wide difference in my client in that case, and the other party, it seemed really bizarre that the judge would favor the other party. My client is a hard-working person who supports several children and a spouse along with paying child support in the case in which I was moving for residential placement. The other party sits at home playing games on Facebook, paying bills from child support and food stamps and the generosity of that party's own mother. Which would YOU want to raise your child? Yet the judge went with the nonworking person and castigated the working person. Hard to believe.
In the second case, the SAME judge, when confronted with a nonworking parent living off benefits who absconded from the jurisdiction with my client's child in violation of a custody order, gave custody to my client. The only difference was the provability of the interference with custody / visitation. In the first instance, the other party took passive-aggressive efforts to undermine my client's role. In the second case, the other party took an overt and undeniable course of action that completely removed the child from my client's reach, traveling to California. But in the first case, the parties HAD no custody order, so the question was which party would be the best custodian, while in the second case, the question was whether the designated custodian interfered with the other party's rights. Therein lies the rub: The first case was a 'best interest' analysis, opening the full range of judicial discretion. The second case was a contempt action, leaving the court to determine only if there was an order, and if the custodial parent's actions willfully violated it. Since all custody orders in Missouri delineate procedures that must be followed for the child to be moved, the answer flowed from the undisputed facts. The judge's only real discretion was in the remedy, and since the custodial parent repeatedly testified that she intended to leave, taking the child from her was the only way to insure that my client could see his child.
In the final analysis, the hardest concept for a party to grasp is that of judicial discretion. Each party feels they are right in their recommendation to the court. Someone wins, someone loses. Only when the Court's judgment goes so far beyond the evidence as to "shock the conscience" is the court of appeals likely to reverse. That is a heavy burden to bear; but at times, it is worth taking on your shoulders, if only to say that you did everything you could do to raise your child in the best possible way.
CC
Monday, December 31, 2012
Happy New Year
One of my New Year's Resolutions is to become more regular about entries in this blog. I blog weekly in my personal site, www.themissourimugwump.blogspot.com, and perhaps doing so distracts me from the original intention of this blogpage, which was to share thoughts, comments and observations about family law in Missouri and its application, implications, and development. It is difficult to maintain because I vest my energy in representing people, and don't often remember to dialogue with people in this venue. I am committed to remedying my oversight!
On the whole, 2012 was a good year for my clients, and I hope for everyone going through divorce, custody fights, or child support reviews. These types of cases do not fade into the woodwork in a bad economy. In fact, financial stress drives many couples apart, even though two cannot live as cheaply as one. Though I do not think people should stay in a bad marriage based upon a cost-benefit analysis, many do; but many more separate because one party cannot maintain financial responsibility, or their relationship has not sufficiently developed to allow them to slog through financial adversity together. Sad, but true.
My job as a family law practitioner requires me to hear the worst of people's lives. I am overwhelmed by their pain at times. I strive to keep a dispassionate voice; I endeavor to help my clients focus on will help their children, what will stabilize their finances, what will open avenues for meaningful change and prosperity. I do not charge by the hour but by the increment of work, and I do not charge to visit with my clients, respond to their e-mails, talk with them about the situation in which they find themselves. I will never be rich, but I am proud of the work that I do.
By the same token, I do need to get paid; and some of my clients put payment to their lawyer dead last on their priority list. Those clients voice outrage when you insist on being paid or you will withdraw. "But I have bills to pay!" one proclaimed, years ago. Yes, and your debt to me is one of those bills! I would do this for free if I could - I like what I do, and for the most part, I am proud of my accomplishments. But regrettably, this is a business, and I am increasingly driven to treat it like one. Such is my lot in life!
Most of my clients, however, pay their bills and timely so. Most of them treat their separating spouse with dignity, and most of them put the needs of their children before their own bitterness or resentment. The world in which I practice law by and by consists of decent folks, just trying to re-order their lives after the splinter of a union that they hoped would endure, or the disclosure by a partner of an unplanned pregnancy, or even an announcement of a child's existence of whom they had never previously been aware. These times try their patience, their souls and their pocketbooks, and I strive to insure that neither they nor I go broke with me representing them. My goal: to achieve for my clients an outcome with which they can live, even if it is not 100% what they want, and the closer that I can come to 100% of their desired terms, the better I feel about what I have done for them.
But I do this within a certain parameter of fairness that I will not compromise. A parenting plan must be in the children's best interest. The property settlement has to be fair and not unconscionable. Child support paid must be fair and appropriate. I stick to these standards, and counsel my clients to do so. I try to share with them what terms, what allocation and distribution, what numbers, fall within these guidelines, and I encourage them to ask for outcomes that meet these limits. I have even withdrawn when a client demanded that I advocate for a position that I felt was frankly unfair.
Some of what the law allows displeases me. I think very few divorcing spouses should be eligible for "maintenance", or what we used to call "alimony". I think most able-bodied people can and should be required to support themselves after divorce. There are exceptions: where one spouse has for years and by agreement been a 'stay-at-home' parent and has no marketable skills; where the spouse seeking maintenance is incapable of work due to health or disability, or age; and where there is a gross disparity of income coupled with a lack of employability by the other spouse who is also caring for small children, where the daycare costs would outpace the meager income that the custodial parent can garner. But these exceptions occur with decreasing frequency in our world, and in all but a small percentage of cases, I think maintenance should be denied. Men and women alike should work.
I find the calculation of child support based upon pre-tax income to be repugnant. We do NOT budget our partnered households based upon GROSS WAGES, and neither should separated / divorced parents be required to do so. That is wholly unrealistic.
And my biggest bogeyman (intended pun) remains the implicit belief that Mom should have principal residential custody and Dad should have every-other-weekend. Believe it or not, more judges and attorneys voice this now than I heard do so ten years ago. We seem to be regressing. I firmly believe that children need as close to possible equal time with each parent, and that the parents should work together to make sure the children understand that they will going forward have two homes: One with Mom, and one with Dad. Children need PARENTS, not VISITORS. The distinction between "parenting time" and "visitation" does not lie solely in semantics. It is a genuine distinction and the use of the term "visitation" tells the child, and the parents, that the time spent with the "non-custodial" parent is less significant than time spent with the custodial parent. We must change that view. I thought we were, but we seem to have back-tracked. It saddens me.
I view 2013 as a professional opportunity to be a better family law practitioner than I have been. I vow to promote alternative dispute resolution where it is appropriate but fight for my clients when that is required. I will encourage my clients to calmly and coolly reflect on what is best for their children without opening themselves up to bullying, manipulation, or emotional blackmail; or putting their children in harm's way. On a practical basis, I vow to strive towards professional collegiality and the timely and proper attention to details.
Happy New Year, everyone. If you are in need of a family law practitioner in Jackson, Clay or Platte Counties in Missouri, I am happy to hear from you. If you need a family law practitioner in another county, call or email and I will refer you to someone. My office-mate, Jane Williams, practices estate, probate, business, and family law in Kansas, and similar areas in Missouri. I can also help you find attorneys in most areas of practice, on both sides of the state line, and other places in Missouri. I hope you don't need an attorney except if you have wealth, prosperity and business development that demands it. But whatever your legal needs, call me: If I cannot help, I will help you find someone who can.
Thank you for your support of the Corley Law Firm in 2012. We look forward to a joyful, prosperous and happy 2013, and wish the same for you and yours.
Corinne Corley and staff
On the whole, 2012 was a good year for my clients, and I hope for everyone going through divorce, custody fights, or child support reviews. These types of cases do not fade into the woodwork in a bad economy. In fact, financial stress drives many couples apart, even though two cannot live as cheaply as one. Though I do not think people should stay in a bad marriage based upon a cost-benefit analysis, many do; but many more separate because one party cannot maintain financial responsibility, or their relationship has not sufficiently developed to allow them to slog through financial adversity together. Sad, but true.
My job as a family law practitioner requires me to hear the worst of people's lives. I am overwhelmed by their pain at times. I strive to keep a dispassionate voice; I endeavor to help my clients focus on will help their children, what will stabilize their finances, what will open avenues for meaningful change and prosperity. I do not charge by the hour but by the increment of work, and I do not charge to visit with my clients, respond to their e-mails, talk with them about the situation in which they find themselves. I will never be rich, but I am proud of the work that I do.
By the same token, I do need to get paid; and some of my clients put payment to their lawyer dead last on their priority list. Those clients voice outrage when you insist on being paid or you will withdraw. "But I have bills to pay!" one proclaimed, years ago. Yes, and your debt to me is one of those bills! I would do this for free if I could - I like what I do, and for the most part, I am proud of my accomplishments. But regrettably, this is a business, and I am increasingly driven to treat it like one. Such is my lot in life!
Most of my clients, however, pay their bills and timely so. Most of them treat their separating spouse with dignity, and most of them put the needs of their children before their own bitterness or resentment. The world in which I practice law by and by consists of decent folks, just trying to re-order their lives after the splinter of a union that they hoped would endure, or the disclosure by a partner of an unplanned pregnancy, or even an announcement of a child's existence of whom they had never previously been aware. These times try their patience, their souls and their pocketbooks, and I strive to insure that neither they nor I go broke with me representing them. My goal: to achieve for my clients an outcome with which they can live, even if it is not 100% what they want, and the closer that I can come to 100% of their desired terms, the better I feel about what I have done for them.
But I do this within a certain parameter of fairness that I will not compromise. A parenting plan must be in the children's best interest. The property settlement has to be fair and not unconscionable. Child support paid must be fair and appropriate. I stick to these standards, and counsel my clients to do so. I try to share with them what terms, what allocation and distribution, what numbers, fall within these guidelines, and I encourage them to ask for outcomes that meet these limits. I have even withdrawn when a client demanded that I advocate for a position that I felt was frankly unfair.
Some of what the law allows displeases me. I think very few divorcing spouses should be eligible for "maintenance", or what we used to call "alimony". I think most able-bodied people can and should be required to support themselves after divorce. There are exceptions: where one spouse has for years and by agreement been a 'stay-at-home' parent and has no marketable skills; where the spouse seeking maintenance is incapable of work due to health or disability, or age; and where there is a gross disparity of income coupled with a lack of employability by the other spouse who is also caring for small children, where the daycare costs would outpace the meager income that the custodial parent can garner. But these exceptions occur with decreasing frequency in our world, and in all but a small percentage of cases, I think maintenance should be denied. Men and women alike should work.
I find the calculation of child support based upon pre-tax income to be repugnant. We do NOT budget our partnered households based upon GROSS WAGES, and neither should separated / divorced parents be required to do so. That is wholly unrealistic.
And my biggest bogeyman (intended pun) remains the implicit belief that Mom should have principal residential custody and Dad should have every-other-weekend. Believe it or not, more judges and attorneys voice this now than I heard do so ten years ago. We seem to be regressing. I firmly believe that children need as close to possible equal time with each parent, and that the parents should work together to make sure the children understand that they will going forward have two homes: One with Mom, and one with Dad. Children need PARENTS, not VISITORS. The distinction between "parenting time" and "visitation" does not lie solely in semantics. It is a genuine distinction and the use of the term "visitation" tells the child, and the parents, that the time spent with the "non-custodial" parent is less significant than time spent with the custodial parent. We must change that view. I thought we were, but we seem to have back-tracked. It saddens me.
I view 2013 as a professional opportunity to be a better family law practitioner than I have been. I vow to promote alternative dispute resolution where it is appropriate but fight for my clients when that is required. I will encourage my clients to calmly and coolly reflect on what is best for their children without opening themselves up to bullying, manipulation, or emotional blackmail; or putting their children in harm's way. On a practical basis, I vow to strive towards professional collegiality and the timely and proper attention to details.
Happy New Year, everyone. If you are in need of a family law practitioner in Jackson, Clay or Platte Counties in Missouri, I am happy to hear from you. If you need a family law practitioner in another county, call or email and I will refer you to someone. My office-mate, Jane Williams, practices estate, probate, business, and family law in Kansas, and similar areas in Missouri. I can also help you find attorneys in most areas of practice, on both sides of the state line, and other places in Missouri. I hope you don't need an attorney except if you have wealth, prosperity and business development that demands it. But whatever your legal needs, call me: If I cannot help, I will help you find someone who can.
Thank you for your support of the Corley Law Firm in 2012. We look forward to a joyful, prosperous and happy 2013, and wish the same for you and yours.
Corinne Corley and staff
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Calculating child support
The Missouri guidelines for calculating child support changed on the first of the year. However, these are the guidelines for calculating PRESUMED child support, not necessarily the "fair and appropriate" child support.
Litigants who have pending requests for a child support order should note that calculation of presumed support pursuant to Rule 88.01, Form 14, is required by Missouri law. Once the presumed child support is calculated, the Court must decide if the "presumption" that the resultant calculation is the appropriate child support has been rebutted. If the Court determines that it has been rebutted, the Court must then determine the fair and appropriate child support.
Work with your legal representative to determine and provide all relevant information so that your representative can help you attain a fair outcome.
Litigants who have pending requests for a child support order should note that calculation of presumed support pursuant to Rule 88.01, Form 14, is required by Missouri law. Once the presumed child support is calculated, the Court must decide if the "presumption" that the resultant calculation is the appropriate child support has been rebutted. If the Court determines that it has been rebutted, the Court must then determine the fair and appropriate child support.
Work with your legal representative to determine and provide all relevant information so that your representative can help you attain a fair outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)