Some Practical Advice About Money

There are two reasons family law will always be a busy area of practice.  The reasons are that there are two subjects we do not teach in school: conflict resolution and money management.  If people could manage their money or the conflict in their lives, the divorce business would be in for a major downturn.

Practical financial advice is hard to come by.  And we say this with some authority because we have been looking for professionals who understand household finance.  Yes, there are thousands of publications out there that will tell you how to ladder certificates of deposit or dollar cost average your way into index funds.  But, how much you spend on a car or an apartment often determines whether you have any money to invest at all.

Ironically, we found some sensible and practical advice in the September, 2009 issue of Glamour Magazine. No kidding.  Wedged in between Jessica Simpson’s views on men and three flat belly secrets we found an article by Sophia Banay supported by a woman named Galia Gichon who founded something called “Down to Earth Finance.”  The magazine is worth buying for all of the advice but the segment we particularly liked was the part discussing how to budget a $50,000 income.  Gichon breaks down expenses into four categories. She takes the budget and converts to monthly income of about $4150.  She appears to allow for income taxes although that number is not discussed.  But her breakdown is divided between:

Fixed expenses that don’t change monthly                         $1665 a month

Discretionary living expenses                                             $830-970 a month

Retirement savings                                                            $417 a month minimum

General Savings                                                                 $140-280 a month

Gichon comments that fixed expenses including rent, utilities and car payments should not consume more than 60% of your net income (gross income less income taxes).  She suggests that rent or mortgage payments should not exceed half of the fixed expense budget, although this can be a tough assignment in many urban parts of this country. But if that is where life takes you, the answer may be that you don’t drive the same car or limit your discretionary expenses.

Obviously, it is also possible to forego general savings, especially in a world where you are already saving for retirement.  The article suggests that discretionary expenses be limited to 30% of net pay.  This is where the weak tend to falter at the altar of clothing stores, restaurants and Starbucks.  Another contributor to the article, Maria Bartiromo of Closing Bell on CNBC sagely offers that you allow yourself a day before making any major discretionary purchase.  Time afford perspective and you may actually discover that television is almost as enjoyable on the 30 inch flat screen even though the 42 inch beckons.

The article also addresses the subject of debt.  In the past the standard advice is that you need to save three to six months income to cover you for the “rainy day” of illness or unemployment.  Today, consumer credit may fill in the gap, but we are finding that many people are already using their cards to fund expenses they can’t afford long before the rain day ever comes.  These are folks who simply cannot survive if a crisis emerges because they are already deep in high rate debt.

The goal is to budget but before you can intelligently budget you must first be thoroughly familiar with what you bring home and what you currently spend.  It is not a pretty task but people who want to have money when they stop working had better address the question sooner rather than later no matter what their marital status.

Source for post: Pennsylvania Family Law

Madonna and Ritchie May Pursue Collaborative Divorce

Interesting article in the London Times online edition edition today, reproduced in full below, regarding the Madonna – Guy Ritchie split up. As I have said before, I usually try to avoind writing about celebrity stories here. But this story I think warrants mention. It had looked like Madonna’s divorce was headed toward being the same sort of donnybrook that Paul McCartney had become embroiled in with Heather Mills. The gloves were off, the snarky comments to the media from “friends” and “confidantes” had started. But it looks like Madonna and Guy have stepped back from the abyss, and intend to pursue a process that is more civil, and will allow them a better chance of moving forward, with their children as a family. I’d like to think that the story would garner great press coverage and be a boon for collaborative practice – of which I am a HUGE advocate. But friendly and civil doesn’t make headlines, and that’s too bad. In any event, here’s the story:

Madonna and Guy Ritchie could be the first high-profile couple to divorce collaborative-style.

The new, fast-track and non-confrontational way of reaching arrangements over money and children on divorce has just won senior judicial backing – in the week that the couple’s split became public knowledge.

Collaborative law does not sound buzzy. But it is the in-method of reaching divorce agreements, with the benefits of speed, huge cost savings and, above all, minimum acrimony.

Last week a couple of hundred lawyers gathered to celebrate the fifth year since American-style collaborative law was introduced in the UK. In 2003, four London lawyers were among a handful who had qualified in the new method; now there are more than 1,250 and more than 300 in London. This year has also seen the appointment of London’s first “collaborative” silk: Tim Amos, QC.

What is it? It aims to help couples reach agreement out of court, avoiding the risk of the public mud-slinging and battles epitomised in the split between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

Settlements are reached in four-way, face-to-face talks between the parties and their lawyers. There is an incentive to agree: if the talks fail, then new lawyers have to be instructed for court proceedings – at extra cost.

The couple draws up a consent order which is then agreed by the court. This process used to take three to four months. But last week , Mr Justice Coleridge, a senior family judge, announced a fast-track procedure whereby such orders could now be approved within a couple of days.

He said that If every aspect of the case had been agreed, and the hearing before a judge for approving the order would not take longer than ten minutes, all that was needed was a day’s notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

The fast-track initiative, which has the backing of Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Division, comes about after an un-named couple had asked for urgent approval of their settlement because one was about to move to the United States with the children.

At first, Mr Justice Coleridge said that he thought the application rather cheeky. But he added: “However, I am, as is well-known, a pussycat, and agreed to hear the application for approval as the first in the list on the following day.”

The key benefits of the new “good divorce” method are that it is non-adversarial; solutions can be tailormade and flexible; clients have control of the pace; experts (accountants, financial advisers, therapists or counsellors) can be brought in and work with the couples; and privacy is preserved.

He did sound one note of caution, however. Lawyers needed to be “acutely sensitive” to the process failing so that “costs are not run up first by one process and then, after the trial has hit the buffers, by the old-fashioned scheme”.

Isobel Robson, partner and head of family at Andrew Jackson, the Yorkshire law firm, said there was a big take-up in the new method.

“I believe that collaborative law is the most exciting development in family law in my 24 years of practice. Clients love it; they regard the process as direct, clear and amicable whilst avoiding the expenses and latent aggression of the court process.”

Cost savings were considerable too, she said. “I have dealt with collaborative cases with assets in the millions and costs of under £10,000 – perhaps only 10 per cent or less of the costs for contest cases with the same assets.”

The take-up among lawyers is still patchy, however, with some hugely successful pockets in the regions where lawyers have embraced the new method, but a slower take-up in other areas, including London.

“The clients embrace the concept that the whole focus of their case is on settling – rather than fighting,” she said.

Suzanne Kingston, head of family at Dawsons LLP, said that for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, the privacy would be a big incentive. The settlement could be reached “in one of the offices of the solicitors rather than in court”.

So it’s down to Fiona Shackleton (for Madonna) and (Lady) Helen Ward, for Ritchie. The couple are said to want a deal by Christmas. Using this route, they could well do it.

Parents Can Get Burned By Kids Online Activity

Ever wonder what your child says about you when you’re not around? Does he spill the beans on your recent nose job or repeat that indiscreet crack you made about your boss? From the moment their kids first grab hold of a mouse, parents often warn them that what they say online could come back to haunt their future — the kids’ future, that is. But what about the parents?

In a little noticed but equally unsettling trend, mom and dad are discovering that their children are spilling some embarrassing — if not damaging — information on blogs and social networking sites that could hurt the parents. Disclosures run the gamut from unflattering portraits and pointed criticisms to intimate secrets, confidential business information and allegations of misdeeds. And while kids often think of their online revelations as akin to a private diary stashed under the bed, they offer everyone from your boss to the local police an unauthorized window into your life. “The result can be devastating,” says lawyer Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety.org, a privacy and security group.

For more of what kids are revealing about their parents online — and what to do about it — turn to the September issue of SmartMoney Magazine1.

Disturbing examples have been cropping up all over the country. According to the police in Myrtle Creek, Ore., Kelly Jo Page was arrested in March for buying a keg of beer for her son’s 17th birthday party, after the boy posted photos of the festivities on his MySpace page. Then there was the man who lost his job in 2005 because his daughter confided in her online journal that Dad was drinking a lot because of his boss, whom he considered a “jerk.” And in Maryland, state police say they arrested a Galena, Md., couple in January after a woman found her 12-year-old daughter’s MySpace page stating that her father and stepmother had given her pot and cocaine. Diana May Bland, 24, and Richard L. Bland III, 30, face trial after pleading not guilty to child abuse, reckless endangerment and various drug charges.

No one knows just how many parents have been burned online, but according to Nielsen/Net Ratings, nearly 13 million kids ages 12 to 17 were using social networks in April 2007, up 17% from a year earlier. A recent study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project noted that 31% of teen social networkers admit they have online “friends” they’ve never met. What kids probably don’t know is that those friends may include professionals ranging from cops and private investigators to headhunters and political opposition consultants, all of whom increasingly admit to searching children’s names and posts for information on their parents.

Most parents are only vaguely familiar with the budding world of social networks and what their children reveal there. Indeed, when a SmartMoney reporter asked Tulsa, Okla., father Mike Ferguson if he read his college son’s blog, he responded, “What’s a blog?” Guess he missed the entry in Michael Jr.’s online diary that recounted, in gory detail, why Dad quit his job.

Source: Smart Money

“Common Sense” Themes in Divorce Cases

There are certain truths in all family court cases — no matter how famous the parties involved or in which state the case is filed. For instance, James E. McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey, is going through a “contentious” divorce. Last Friday, the judge in that case urged the McGreeveys to use “common sense” during their split.

The New York Times article about their divorce case illustrates the following common themes:

• Judges want parents to use “common sense”
• Judges want parents to facilitate age-appropriate activities
• Judges want parents to minimize the potential effects of the proceedings and the parental conflict on the child
• Judges focus primarily on parenting skills, not side issues like sexual orientation
• Judges don’t like parents accusing each other of every imaginable error or misdeed
• Judges don’t want to micromanage a child’s life
• Judges will employ methods to reduce conflict and to help resolve child-related disputes, such as the appointment a parenting coordinator

Sources: “Judge Wants Common Sense Used in McGreeveys’ Divorce” published in The New York Times and “Learning From the Contentious Divorce of Former Governor James E. McGreevey” by David C. Sarnacki, published at his Domestic Diversons blog.

 

Source for post: South Carolina Family Law Blog

Guest Post: Why National Step family Day?

Christy Borgeld, the founder of National Stepfamily Day, has sent in this guest post duscussing the origins of National Stepfamily Day. Christy is doing great work, and I encourage everyoine to check out her website at Nationalstepfamilyday.com:

Why Stepfamily Day
By Christy Borgeld

When I married my husband Jim, 15 years ago, our new family included 6 children from previous marriages and relationships. Having a child together turned our family into a not-so Brady Bunch. Our problems didn’t get solved in 30 minutes and there’s no housekeeper to help out.

Behind my light-heartedness is a concern for stepfamilies everywhere. These unique family units are often a mishmash of grandparents, aunts, uncles, ex-spouses, and children who must learn to deal with stepmothers and stepfathers. Problems such as stepsibling rivalries and their consequential self-esteem, setting new rules and boundaries, and ex-spousal feuds are just a few aspect that strain most stepfamilies.

My mission began. My only involvement with the government was to vote. I had no idea how to get a day proclaimed. I did research on Anna Jarvis, who was the founder of Mother’s Day. I read about her campaign and her passion to have Mother’s Day proclaimed. I contacted my state governor’s office and started asking questions. I soon learned that to get a day proclaimed I had to have each state governor to proclaim the day or a state senator or state representative to have a resolution passed. So I picked a date, wrote up language for the Stepfamily Day proclamation, and went to work.

This year marks Stepfamily Day’s 10th Anniversary. Today Stepfamily Day is celebrated by having a Stepfamily Day picnic. Cities throughout all 50 states celebrate Stepfamily Day with a family picnic.

As the stepmother and stepfather become central figures in the lives of our children, in a time that is very confusing for them, let us remember the positive and important role we play in their lives as role models. I hope Stepfamily Day will encourage and educate these families. To honor those who have made a commitment to creating new family bonds.

Christy Borgeld Founder-National Stepfamily Day-September 16
EST. 1997
http://www.nationalstepfamilyday.com
contact@nationalstepfamilyday.com

National Stepfamily Resource Center
(NSRC) is a division of Auburn University’s Center for Children, Youth, and Families
Stepfamily Expert Council
http://www.stepfamilies.info

Keeping the Noncustodial Parent Involved in Your Child’s Life

Studies have shown that maintaining a significant role for a noncustodial parent in a child’s life has important benefits for the child, his or her relationship with the noncustodial parent, and even for the custodial parent. Divorce Magazine has published a lengthy article on this subject. read the article in its entirety below the fold:

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Grandparent Visitation Case

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a Pennsylvania man’s appeal that raised the question of whether grandparents should be required to show that keeping children away from grandparents would be harmful to the children as a condition for granting the grandparents visitation rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, in Fausey v. Hiller that no such showing is required. In denying Shane Fausey’s petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to clarify an area of the law that they left fairly muddled the last time they considered the issue in a case that resulted in a badly splintered Court and multiple opinions.

The Stepfamily Blog

Readers of this blog are probably familiar with Dawn Miller’s website, TheStepFamilyLife.com. I have linked to Dawn’s site several times. I have found her work there to be insightful, inspiring, and not least, appropriately humorous. As Dawn noted ina  comment to one of my earlier posts, she is back writing, and has a blog, not so coincidentally named The Step Family Life. I would like to take this opportuniy to thank Dawn for reading, and to welcome her to the blogosphere. I encourage everyone interested in issues of concern to blended families to read Dawn’s blog.

Blended Families and a Presidential Campaign

Rudy Giuliani is not at all atypical, at least in terms of his rather complicated family life. The New York Times has this rather interesting article on the subject of blended families in tomorrow’s paper. Mayor Giliuani’s travails are not at all uncommon.