Plan Now to Avoid Potential Divorce Complications

When business owners think about wealth management, they may think of stocks and bonds, trusts and other investment options.  But one thing that is not often discussed – although it can have a significant impact on the accumulation of wealth – is divorce.
The statistics show that 40 to 50 percent of couples who marry this year will divorce.  When that statistic is added to the fact that people are marrying later and often after successful careers are under way, it means that the impact of divorce on wealth management is probably more significant than ever before.

The divorce of a business owner or executive can cause serious complications, not only to the individual, but also to the company.  This is because unless precautions are taken, a married person’s ownership of a partnership or corporation will be presumed to be marital property subject to division in divorce.

In order to avoid finding itself with unwanted partners or shareholders, a business needs to plan.  It can prevent stock or partnership interests being transferred to a non-employee spouse by several different means.

Shareholder or partnership agreements, employment agreements and buy-sell agreements are some of the tools available to prevent strangers from acquiring an ownership interest in a company.  Such agreements can provide that no shareholder or partner may transfer any ownership interest to a non-employee, or to one not in a specified category of persons.  Or, the agreement can ensure that the company has the option to purchase any stock or partnership interest owned by a shareholder or partner who is going through a divorce.

Another factor to consider is that businesses sometimes award unvested stock options or unvested restricted stock to their executives.  The options or restricted stock will be deemed marital if earned during the marriage, but most courts will not consider them marital if earned in the future, after the marriage is ended.  Because neither the individual nor the business wants them split with a divorcing spouse, which would eliminate literally half of the company-provided incentive for the executive, the company should make clear in its documents whether the award is compensation for past performance or whether it is an incentive for the executive to remain employed at the company and earn benefits in the future.

Additionally, unless stock or a partnership interest is inherited or acquired as a gift, the interest will be considered marital property, subject to being split with a spouse in a divorce, or if awarded solely to the employee-spouse, requiring an offsetting payment to the non-employee spouse.  If the stock or partnership interest is ordered split, the once-majority owner loses control, or if the employee already owns merely a minority interest, the position is further diluted.

How a business is structured is also an important factor to consider.  Not only property division but also support awards are affected by the form of ownership in a business.  For example, if a spouse owns an interest in a subchapter S corporation (a business that passes its income through to the individual owner’s tax return) courts will presume that all the reported income is actually received by the individual, and thus is available to be paid for maintenance or child support.  (Many lawyers and judges do not understand that the income reported on line 17
of the individual’s 1040 tax return may have no connection with the cash distributions actually received by the individual from the business.)

While the decision whether to become a C corporation (a business that reports and pays taxes on its income rather than having the owners report the business income) is a very complicated one, if the business owner has the option, he or she should consider the possible advantages of converting to a C corporation prior to divorce.

In my experience, the typical small business owner who is divorcing wants his or her spouse to be awarded something other than an ownership interest, making non-transferability of stock or options crucial. However, even if the company does not have agreements preventing transferability, of course a shareholder or partner of a small business can also protect that interest through a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement.

The spouse cannot be divested of rights to marital assets unilaterally or without a fair deal being struck, but such an agreement can be structured to protect the business interest while being fair to the spouse.

These various options are only a few to consider and are best explored with trusted business advisors,  such as an accountant or business/family attorney. But there is no doubt that with careful planning, many business complications that could arise during a divorce can be avoided.

Source for post: Small Business Times

Marriage in America: The Frayed Knot

The students at West Virginia University don’t want you to think they take life too seriously. It is the third-best “party school” in America, according to the Princeton Review’s annual ranking of such things, and comes a creditable fifth in the “lots of beer” category. Booze sometimes causes students’ clothes to fall off. Those who wake up garmentless after a hook-up endure the “walk of shame”, trudging back to their own dormitories in an obviously borrowed football shirt, stirring up gossip with every step.And yet, for all their protestations of wildness, the students are a serious-minded bunch. Yes, they have pre-marital sex. “I don’t see how it’s a bad thing,” says Ashley, an 18-year-old studying criminology. But they are careful not to fall pregnant. It would be “a major disaster,” says Ashley. She has plans. She wants to finish her degree, go to the FBI academy in Virginia and then start a career as a “profiler” helping to catch dangerous criminals. She wants to get married when she is about 24, and have children perhaps at 26. She thinks having children out of wedlock is not wrong, but unwise.

A few blocks away, in a soup kitchen attached to a church, another 18-year-old balances a baby on her knee. Laura has a less planned approach to parenthood. “It just happened,” she says. The father and she were “never really together”, merely “friends with benefits, I guess”. He is now gone. “I didn’t want to put up with his stuff,” she says. “Drugs and stuff,” she adds, by way of explanation.

There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country’s notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into “a nation of separate and unequal families”.

A large majority—92%—of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents (including step-parents). At the bottom of the income scale—families earning less than $15,000—only 20% of children live with two parents. One might imagine that this gap arises simply because two breadwinners earn more than one. A single mother would have to be unusually talented and diligent to make as much as $75,000 while also raising children on her own. And it is impossible in America for two full-time, year-round workers to earn less than $15,000 between them, unless they are (illegally) paid less than the minimum wage.

But there is more to it than this. Marriage itself is “a wealth-generating institution”, according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, who run the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Those who marry “till death do us part” end up, on average, four times richer than those who never marry. This is partly because marriage provides economies of scale—two can live more cheaply than one—and because the kind of people who make more money—those who work hard, plan for the future and have good interpersonal skills—are more likely to marry and stay married. But it is also because marriage affects the way people behave.

American men, once married, tend to take their responsibilities seriously. Avner Ahituv of the University of Haifa and Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute found that “entering marriage raises hours worked quickly and substantially.” Married men drink less, take fewer drugs and work harder, earning between 10% and 40% more than single men with similar schooling and job histories. And marriage encourages both spouses to save and invest more for the future. Each partner provides the other with a form of insurance against falling sick or losing a job.

Marriage also encourages the division of labour. Ms Dafoe Whitehead and Mr Popenoe put it like this: “Working as a couple, individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner.” Mum handles the tax returns while Dad fixes the car. Or vice versa. As Adam Smith observed two centuries ago, when you specialise, you get better at what you do, and you produce more.

Perhaps the most convincing work showing that marriage is more than just a piece of paper was done by Mr Lerman of the Urban Institute. In “Married and Unmarried Parenthood and Economic Wellbeing”, he addressed the “selection effect”—the question of whether married-couple families do better because of the kind of people who marry, or because of something about marriage itself.

Using data from a big annual survey, he looked at all the women who had become pregnant outside marriage. He estimated the likelihood that they would marry, using dozens of variables known to predict this, such as race, income and family background. He then found out whether they did in fact marry, and what followed.

His results were striking. Mothers who married ended up much better off than mothers with the same disadvantages who did not. So did their children. Among those in the bottom quartile of “propensity to marry”, those who married before the baby was six months old were only half as likely to be raising their children in poverty five years later as those who did not (33% to 60%).

Changes in family structure thus have a large impact on the economy. One of the most-cited measures of prosperity, household income, is misleading over time because household sizes have changed. In 1947, the average household contained 3.6 people. By 2006, that number had dwindled to 2.6. This partly reflects two happy facts: more young singles can afford to flee the nest and their parents are living longer after they go. But it also reflects the dismal trend towards family break-up. A study by Adam Thomas and Isabel Sawhill concluded that if the black family had not collapsed between 1960 and 1998, the black child-poverty rate would have been 28.4% rather than 45.6%. And if white families had stayed like they were in 1960, the white child poverty rate would have been 11.4% rather than 15.4%.

Children of the sexual revolution

Since the 1960s, the easy availability of reliable contraception has helped to spur a revolution in sexual mores. As opportunities for women opened up in the workplace, giving them an incentive to delay child-bearing, a little pill let them do just that without sacrificing sex. At the same time, better job opportunities for women changed the balance of power within marriage. Wives became less economically dependent on their husbands, so they found it easier to walk out of unhappy or abusive relationships.

As the sexual revolution gathered steam, the idea that a nuclear family was the only acceptable environment in which to raise a child crumbled. The social stigma around single motherhood, which was intense before the 1960s, has faded. But attitudes still vary by class.

College-educated women typically see single motherhood as a distant second-best to marriage. If they have babies out of wedlock, it is usually because they have not yet got round to marrying the man they are living with. Or because, finding themselves single and nearly 40, they decide they cannot wait for Mr Right and so seek a sperm donor. By contrast, many of America’s least-educated women live in neighbourhoods where single motherhood is the norm. And when they have babies outside marriage, they are typically younger than their middle-class counterparts, in less stable relationships and less prepared for what will follow.

Consider the home life of Lisa Ballard, a 26-year-old single mother in Morgantown. She strains every nerve to give her children the best upbringing she can, while also looking for a job. Her four-year-old son Alex loves the Dr Seuss book “Green Eggs and Ham”, so she reads it to him, and once put green food colouring in his breakfast eggs, which delighted him. But the sheer complexity of her domestic arrangements makes life “very challenging”, she says.

She has four children by three different men. Two were planned, two were not. Two live with her; she has shared custody of one and no custody of another. One of the fathers was “a butthole” who hit her, she says, and is no longer around. The other two are “good fathers”, in that they have steady jobs, pay maintenance, make their children laugh and do not spank them. But none of them still lives with her.

Miss Ballard now thinks that having children before getting married was “not a good idea”. She says she would like to get married some day, though she finds the idea of long-term commitment scary. “You’ve got to definitely make sure it’s the person you want to grow old with. You know, sitting on rocking chairs giggling at the comics. I want to find the right one. I ask God: ‘What does he look like? Can you give me a little hint?’”

If she does find and wed the man of her dreams, Miss Ballard will encounter a problem. She has never seen her own father. Having never observed a stable marriage close-up, she will have to guess how to make one work. By contrast, Ashley, the criminology student at the nearby university, has never seen a divorce in her family. This makes it much more likely that, when the time is right, she will get married and stay that way. And that, in turn, makes it more likely that her children will follow her to college.

Most children in single-parent homes “grow up without serious problems”, writes Mary Parke of the Centre for Law and Social Policy, a think-tank in Washington, DC. But they are more than five times as likely to be poor as those who live with two biological parents (26% against 5%). Children who do not live with both biological parents are also roughly twice as likely to drop out of high school and to have behavioural or psychological problems. Even after controlling for race, family background and IQ, children of single mothers do worse in school than children of married parents, says Ms Hymowitz.

Children whose father was never around face the toughest problems. For those whose parents split up, the picture is more nuanced. If parents detest each other and quarrel bitterly, their kids may actually benefit from a divorce. Paul Amato of Penn State University has found that 40% of American divorces leave the children better (or at least, no worse) off than the turbulent marriages that preceded them. In other cases, however, what is good for the parents may well harm the children. And two parents are likely to be better at child-rearing because they can devote more time and energy to it than one can.

Research also suggests that middle- and working-class parents approach child-rearing in different ways. Professional parents shuttle their kids from choir practice to baseball camp and check that they are doing their homework. They also talk to them more. One study found that a college professor’s kids hear an average of 2,150 words per hour in the first years of life. Working-class children hear 1,250 and those in welfare families only 620.

Co-habiting couples have the same number of hands as married couples, so they ought to make equally good parents. Many do, but on average the children of co-habiting couples do worse by nearly every measure. One reason is that such relationships are less stable than marriages. In America, they last about two years on average. About half end in marriage. But those who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.

Many people will find this surprising. A survey of teenagers by the University of Michigan found that 64% of boys and 57% of girls agreed that “it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along.” Research suggests otherwise. Two-thirds of American children born to co-habiting parents who later marry will see their parents split up by the time they are ten. Those born within wedlock face only half that risk.

The likeliest explanation is inertia, says Scott Stanley of the Centre for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, Colorado. Couples start living together because it is more fun (and cheaper) than living apart. One partner may see this as a prelude to marriage. The other—usually the man—may see it as something more temporary. Since no explicit commitment is made, it is easier to drift into living together than it is to drift into a marriage. But once a couple is living together, it is harder to split up than if they were merely dating. So “many of these men end up married to women they would not have married if they hadn’t been living together,” says Mr Stanley, co-author of a paper called “Sliding versus deciding”.

A little help from the government

Most American politicians say they support marriage, but few do much about it, except perhaps to sound off about the illusory threat to it from gays. The public are divided. Few want to go back to the attitudes or divorce laws of the 1950s. But many at both ends of the political spectrum lament the fragility of American families and would change, at least, the way the tax code penalises many couples who marry. And some politicians want the state to draw attention to benefits of marriage, as it does to the perils of smoking. George Bush is one.

Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: “If you’re being abused, you should get out.” Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex.

Her budget for boosting marriage is tiny: $100m a year, or about what the Defence Department spends every two hours. Some of it funds research into what makes a relationship work well and whether outsiders can help. Most of the rest goes to groups that try to help couples get along better, some of which are religiously-inspired. The first 124 grants were disbursed only last September, so it is too early to say whether any of this will work. But certain approaches look hopeful.

One is “marriage education”. This is not the same as marriage therapy or counselling. Rather than waiting till a couple is in trouble and then having them sit down with a specialist to catalogue each other’s faults, the administration favours offering relationship tips to large classes.

The army already does this. About 35,000 soldiers this year will get a 12-hour course on how to communicate better with their partners, and how to resolve disputes without throwing plates. It costs about $300 per family. Given that it costs $50,000 to recruit and train a rifleman, and that marital problems are a big reason why soldiers quit, you don’t have to save many marriages for this to be cost-effective, says Peter Frederich, the chaplain in charge.

Several studies have shown that such courses do indeed help couples communicate better and quarrel less bitterly. As to whether they prevent divorce, a meta-analysis by Jason Carroll and William Doherty concluded that the jury was still out. The National Institutes of Health is paying for a five-year study of Mr Frederich’s soldiers to shed further light on the issue.

Americans expect a lot from marriage. Whereas most Italians say the main purpose of marriage is to have children, 70% of Americans think it is something else. They want their spouse to make them happy. Some go further and assume that if they are not happy, it must be because they picked the wrong person. Sometimes that is true, sometimes not. There is no such thing as a perfectly compatible couple, argues Diane Sollee, director of smartmarriages.com, a pro-marriage group. Every couple has disputes, she says. What matters most is how they resolve them.

At the end of the day, says Ms Squier, the government’s influence over the culture of marriage will be marginal. Messages from movies, peers and parents matter far more. But she does not see why, for example, the government’s only contact with an unmarried father should be to demand that he pay child support. By not even mentioning marriage, the state is implying that no one expects him to stick around. Is that a helpful message?

Source for post: The Economist

Preparing for Divorce

Alabama Family Law Blog posts a series of articles about preparing for divorce:
Step 1 – Find a Wise Guide
Step 2 – Make an accounting of the family finances
Step 2A – Determine what you own
Step 2B – Determine what you owe
Step 2C – Determine Income
Step 3 – Make photocopies of all the financial records
Step 4 – Prepare a budget (or two)
Document & Safeguard Personal Property
Step 6 – Establish your own credit
Step 7 – Assess the Financial Accounts
Step 8 – Address the Credit Accounts
Step 9 – Avoid additional debt or major purchases
Step 10 – Stay Put (until further notice)
Step 11 – Keep a diary

Source: Alabama Family Law Blog. Thanks to Diana Skaggs for this post on tge subject.

Another View on Alec Baldwin

Most commentators have been very harshly critical of actor Alec Baldwin’s behavior in his recent dustup with his ex-wife and daughter over an angry voicemail that Baldwin left for the daughter (see my earlier post on this here and here). I am not a fan of Baldwin (although I have enjoyed some of his films). I do not like his politics or his public persona, and was, like most, appalled by his outburst at his daughter. That said – there are always many sides to the story. Stephen Baskerville provides some interesting commentary on what likely led to Baldin’s outburst, reasoning that the callous treatment that most father’s receive at the hands of the “family law” system was likely a contributing factor to Baldin’s feeling that he had been alienated from his daughter, and fueling his outburst. I, for one, find Baskerville’s analysis more than plausible, and I look forward to reading Mr. Baskerville’s book on the ongoing assault on fatherhood and marriage.

Advisors Say Plan for the Worst: Divorce

Advisers Say Plan for the Worst: Divorce
By Reina V. Slutske
Signal Business Writer

With more than 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, dealing with custody, splitting up property and paying alimony are realities that some families must deal with.

Of course, they are also serious issues of contention that can often cause financial hardship to one or both parties involved.

“The harsh truth is all relationships end, be it divorce or death,” said Cheryl Bernstein, a financial planner for Financial Essentials. “At some time or another, and you need to know where your money is.”

There are many financial issues, ranging from tax implications to determining assets, that come into play during a divorce.

However, it’s only a part of the story.

“In middle-size divorces, it’s part of a case, but not all of the case,” said Steven Chroman, a Valencia divorce attorney.

Money issues ranging from property distribution to spousal and child support all factor in and become issues, especially when a marriage has seen an increase in money for one or both parties.

Chroman said that in California, people are lucky, as in most divorce cases there are disclosure requirements, and people can hire accountants to be able to trace all property and assets and be able to determine tax implications.

Bernstein said it’s important for both men and women to be financially educated and know where all their money and obligations are.

“Don’t count on the other spouse,” she said, because there could be case of needing to know where everything is.

Chroman said money can be manipulated, which is why it is important to have the right people available to handle what a person might forget during the course of a divorce.

In addition, in spousal support and monetary settlements, the parties have to be aware of all things that come up during the course of a marriage, and have “due diligence” in figuring out what is owned and managed.

Chroman said that although it is an unromantic ideal, a pre- or post-nuptial agreement might help in protecting assets, such as an estate or trust that a person comes into a marriage with, and being able to keep that money after a divorce.

It’s not just for the wealthy, either. He said that it is also a common practice in middle-class marriages.

“A lot of things can happen,” he said. “People get divorced for crazy reasons, and it’s a security device for both.”

 

Source for post:  San Francisco Family Law Blog

Top 10 Divorce Myths

1 Because people learn from their bad experiences, second marriages tend to be more successful than first marriages.

Although many people who divorce have successful subsequent marriages, the divorce rate of remarriages is in fact higher than that of first marriages.¹

2 Living together before marriage is a good way to reduce the chances of eventually divorcing.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have a considerably higher chance of eventually divorcing. The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended.² 

3 Divorce may cause problems for many of the children who are affected by it, but by and large these problems are not long lasting and the children recover relatively quickly.

Divorce increases the risk of interpersonal problems in children. There is evidence, both from small qualitative studies and from large-scale, long-term empirical studies, that many of these problems are long lasting. In fact, they may even become worse in adulthood.³

4 Having a child together will help a couple to improve their marital satisfaction and prevent a divorce.

Many studies have shown that the most stressful time in a marriage is after the first child is born. Couples who have a child together have a slightly decreased risk of divorce compared to couples without children, but the decreased risk is far less than it used to be when parents with marital problems were more likely to stay together “for the sake of the children.”⁴

5 Following divorce, the woman’s standard of living plummets by seventy three percent while that of the man’s improves by forty two percent.

This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman’s loss was twenty seven percent while the man’s gain was ten percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.⁵ 

6 When parents don’t get along, children are better off if their parents divorce than if they stay together.

A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce.⁶ 

7 Because they are more cautious in entering marital relationships and also have a strong determination to avoid the possibility of divorce, children who grow up in a home broken by divorce tend to have as much success in their own marriages as those from intact homes.

Marriages of the children of divorce actually have a much higher rate of divorce than the marriages of children from intact families. A major reason for this, according to a recent study, is that children learn about marital commitment or permanence by observing their parents. In the children of divorce, the sense of commitment to a lifelong marriage has been undermined.⁷ 

8 Following divorce, the children involved are better off in stepfamilies than in single-parent families.

The evidence suggests that stepfamilies are no improvement over single-parent families, even though typically income levels are higher and there is a father figure in the home. Stepfamilies tend to have their own set of problems, including interpersonal conflicts with new parent figures and a very high risk of family breakup.⁸ 

9 Being very unhappy at certain points in a marriage is a good sign that the marriage will eventually end in divorce.

All marriages have their ups and downs. Recent research using a large national sample found that eighty six percent of people who were unhappily married in the late 1980s, and stayed with the marriage, indicated when interviewed five years later that they were happier. Indeed, three fifths of the formerly unhappily married couples rated their marriages as either “very happy” or “quite happy.”⁹

10 It is usually men who initiate divorce proceedings

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.¹⁰  Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

Sources

¹ Joshua R. Goldstein, “The Leveling of Divorce in the United States” Demography 36 (1999): 409-414; Andrew Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)

² Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao, “Premartial Cohabitation and Marital Instability in the United States: A Reassessment” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (1992): 178-190; Pamela J. Smock, “Cohabitation in the United States” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000)

³ Judith Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Andrew J. Cherlin, P. Lindsay Chase-Landsdale, and Christine McRae, “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course” American Sociological Review 63 (1998): 239-249; Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997)

⁴ Tim B. Heaton, “Marital Stability Throughout the Child-rearing Years” Demography 27 (1990): 55-63; Linda Waite and Lee A. Lillard, “Children and Marital Disruption” American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991): 930-953; Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip A. Cowan, When Partners Become Parents: The Big Life Change for Couples (New York: Basic Books, 1992)

⁵ Leonore J. Weitzman, “The Economics of Divorce: Social and Economic Consequences of Property, Alimony, and Child Support Awards” UCLA Law Review 28 (August, 1981): 1251; Richard R. Peterson, “A Re-Evaluation of the Economic Consequences of Divorce” American Sociological Review 61 (June, 1996): 528-536; Pamela J. Smock, “The Economic Costs of Marital Disruption for Young Women over the Past Two Decades” Demography 30 (August, 1993): 353-371

⁶ Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997)

⁷ Paul R. Amato, “What Children Learn From Divorce” Population Today, (Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, January 2001); Nicholas H. Wolfinger, “Beyond the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce” Journal of Family Issues 21-8 (2000): 1061-1086

⁸ Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up With a Single Parent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); Alan Booth and Judy Dunn (eds.), Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994)

⁹ Unpublished research by Linda J. Waite, cited in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000): 14

¹⁰ Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas A. Allen, “’These Boots Are Made For Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women” American Law and Economics Review 2-1 (2000): 126-169.

Source for post:  Rutgers University National Marriage Project. Thanks to the Maine Divorce Law Blog for this post on the issue.

Litigant Blogs Facts of Case

It was bound to happen. Maybe it is not the first family law case to be blogged by a litigant, but it’s the first I have seen. I found it troubling to see a party to a pending case blogging his evidence on the internet. We assume judges read blogs. If I represented the opposing party I would be concerned about a member of the judiciary stumbling upon a site such as Let Me See My Son. This case is before the Kentucky Supreme Court and because of the posture of the case will likely be remanded and work its way back up again. What do you think?
SECOND UPDATE: You can find the May 22,2007 Wall Street Journal online article Law Blog Trendspotting: Litigants Launching Web Sites here. Lots of comments.
UPDATE:
From Marcia Oddi at Indiana Law Blog:
In terms of a judge stumbling across it — How is this different from a letter to an editor, or a long interview in a news magazine, or a human interest feature on the evening news?
She also passed on these interesting links: “So what if the judge reads the lawprof’s blog?”, “Forget judges, what if jurors had blogs?”, and “The “new media” panel at the 7th Circuit conference” .

Source: Divorce Law Journal

Protecting Your Business in the Event of Divorce

A business owner who is married or considering marriage, should know how his or her business may be affected in the event of divorce. The following legal issues may pertain to a business and a marriage:

• The value of your business may be included in a divorce settlement. Under Pennsylvania law, marital property is defined as all property acquired from the date of the marriage until the date of separation, including property that is titled in only one person’s name and including any increase in value in property acquired before the marriage.
• A business may be scrutinized during divorce proceedings to determine income for support and equitable distribution purposes.
• A prenuptial agreement may exclude a business from equitable distribution proceedings as long as full disclosure has been provided.

Some guidelines you can follow to generally protect a business are as follows:

• Have a good business accountant. This person should be able to help explain your financial decisions if they are called into question by the other party.
• Retain all records of the value of your business at the time of your marriage. With this information, you will be able to record the appreciation and depreciation of the business during the marriage.
• Itemize all expenses; keep accurate tax returns, records, books, and receipts. These will all be scrutinized in a support context.

Creating a fair settlement requires good information from both parties. When you have good records, you can protect your business – and yourself – in the unfortunate event of divorce.

Source for post: Divorce Source

“Get a Divorce Billboard” Taken Down

Many of you may have heard something about the so-called “racy” billboard that Chicago area lawyer Corri Fetman put up to advertise her divorce law firm. The billboard , which read “Life is Short. Get a divorce ….” received a lot of national press, in no small part because of the scantily clad male and female figures depicted in the ad. USA Today now reports that the billboard has been removed because, municipal officials claim, Fetman had not obtained the necessary permits. Fetman and her partner claim that the billboard was removed without due process. While I agree with the arguments that many made that the ad, which seemed to promote divorce and suggested getting a divorce as a means to a more exciting sex life, was in poor taste and reflected poorly on lawyers in general, and family law practitioners in particular, I also hope that the stated reason for removing the billboard is truthful. Ms. Fetman has the same free speech rights as the rest of us, even if her chosen method of expressing herself sullies our profession.

How Much Is a Stay At Home Mom Worth?

According to the mom pay wizard calculator at Salary.Com, the typical stay at home mother works 40 hours at base pay and 52 hours overtime for a total of 92 hours a week.Mothers perform ten jobs at home, namely:

• cook
• housekeeper
• day care center teacher
• laundry machine operator
• van driver
• facilities manager
• janitor
• computer operator
• chief executive officer
• psychologist

Salary.Com also says it would take $138,095 a year to buy those services if she did not perform them.
Source for Post: Maryland Divorce Legal Crier.

Source: Kansas Family and Divorce Lawyer