All entries tagged with “equal distribution”

Child Placement Under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)

Placement of children with a parent is one of the most challenging and emotional disputes that take place in civil courts.  Things can often be even more tense and challenging when one parent resides out of state. In order to better position courts to tackle these challenges, Florida is one of a number of states that have adopted the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) via Section 409.401, Florida Statutes.  

A recent case outlines some of the requirements the ICPC places on Florida courts.  In Lawler v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D879 (Fla. 1st DCA April 18, 2017), the First DCA was faced with the unenviable task of unwinding a notedly "well intentioned" order by the trial court on the basis of failure to adhere to the requirements of ICPC.  

Specifically, the trial court was found to have failed to obtain a home study of the Indiana home of the father of two of the children, the children could not be allowed to remain in his custody until the home study was completed.  The record showed that the father and the Department of Health (through DCF) had attempted on several occasions a home study report from Indiana officials without success.  Despite the fact that the children did well residing with the father after being fostered with grandparents following removal from the mother's home due to a domestic violence incident, the law required a home study before final placement could be made.  Though the appellate court rang a sympathetic (and almost apologetic) tone, it upheld the requirements of the law and sent the case back for further proceedings on that issue. 

If you are facing questions about the placement of children or the shared parental responsibilities and requirements under Florida law, reach out to the Family Law attorneys of Icard Merrill today for help.  

Periodic Alimony in Long- versus Short- Term Marriages in Florida

Two cases recently decided highlight the differences between alimony awards depending on whether the marriage is considered short-term or long-term.  RODRIGUEZ v. LORENZO, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4653, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D 790, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Apr. 5, 2017) dealt with a marriage of four years at the time of filing (six years by the time the decree was entered dissolving the marriage), while COOK v. COOK, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4620, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D 770, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Apr. 5, 2017) dealt with a marriage that lasted eighteen years.  

Under Florida law, there is a rebuttable presumtion that "a short-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of less than 7 years, a moderate-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of greater than 7 years but less than 17 years, and long-term marriage is a marriage having a duration of 17 years or greater . . . . until the date of filing of an action for dissolution of marriage." § 61.08, Fla. Stat. Under Florida statutes, there is a rebuttable presumption that a marriage that is short term should not result in permanent periodic alimony, as noted by the Court in the Rodriguez case. Whereas, in long-term marriages, the Court must determine whether there is a need by the spouse seeking alimony and whether there is an ability to pay by the other spouse.  If those criteria are both met, alimony is then awarded, as mentioned int he Cook case.  

As is often the case, these presumptions are usually rebuttable, which makes each case a very fact-specific endeavor.  The help of a trusted and experienced attorney can often mean the difference in many thousands of dollars over the course of life after divorce.

If you have questions about whether you are entitled to alimony or whether your spouse may be entitled to alimony if a claim for it is made, contact the excellent Family Law attorneys at Icard Merrill today.  They can help you understand your rights and obligations. 



The Video Dad and Under-Employed Mom

A father recently appealed a court’s order in a divorce action on two points that together remind us of the challenges and intricacies of modern divorce actions.  In the case of Saucier v. Nowak, a father sought to have a court order amended to reflect a schedule for daily Skype video conferencing with his child (something the child’s mother contested on appeal). Further, the father asked that the court apply imputed wages (i.e., wages that were not actually earned) to the mother based on the fact that the mother was a trained phlebotomist and was instead only imputed an amount equal to the state minimum wage.  41 Fla. L. Weekly D2339 (Fla. 5th DCA October 10, 2016). 

This case highlights some issues present in divorce actions being brought in the current day and age, the first of which is the prevalence of other means of contacting and staying in touch with loved ones.  Skype and other video conferencing software is widespread now in its accessibility and use.  Other forms of electronic connection are available and emerging, as well.  It’s not inconceivable that orders could start being sought and rendered for a period of daily cooperative gaming between parent and child using headsets and video game servers.  There are many means available to stay connected now, and courts have long recognized the value in children staying as connected as practicable to the non-majority timeshare parent.  These alternative ways of staying in touch simply make that goal more attainable and some creative use of technology is something that parents should consider in a divorce action.

The second highlight from the Saucier case is a continued effort to see parents encouraged to reach their full economic potential—or perhaps more accurately, to penalize those parents who are the recipient of spousal support and who don’t realize that full potential.  It is a bit interesting, perhaps, to contrast that the “balanced life” counter-culture now often associated with millennials refusing to take up the yoke of the financial results-focused generations made famous in the 1980’s with that latter money-driven “workaholic” mindset.  Regardless, courts do in some cases reduce the amount of spousal contribution where a parent receiving that support is not either putting in the amount of hours they could be working or if they take work that is below their reasonable earning level. 

The challenging (or enforcing) these mechanisms takes real skill in order to maximize a party’s chances of success.  If you are facing a divorce or are seeking to review or amend a previous order in your divorce case, reach out to the skilled and effective family law attorneys at Icard Merrill today.

Fighting the Solomonic partitioning of assets in divorce cases

As the the Bible story goes, King Solomon proposed to deal with the squabbling of two women fighting over a baby each claimed as her own by dividing the child in half—the ultimate compromise in the face of absolute and mutually exclusive options.  Of course, in the bible verse, King Solomon’s wisdom is borne out (the judgment is avoided when the true mother of the child is determined by her response of offering to give up the child rather than see it hurt), though less clear is the wisdom of the ‘splitting the baby’ approach that has long been a hallmark of divorce courts. 

The Fourth DCA recently addressed the legislative protections in place against the Solomonic method for dividing a couple’s assets in divorce in the case of Pierre v. Pierre, 185 So. 3d 1264, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).  In Pierre, the trial court awarded the wife a vehicle, the marital residence, and held that each husband and wife would keep his or her own retirement and be responsible for the individual debt each had accrued.  However, the court made and recorded in the judgment no findings as to the value of the assets and liabilities when it carved them between husband and wife, in contravention of § 61.075(3), Florida Statutes. 

Thus, despite being protected by an abuse of discretion standard (such that a judgment will stand unless “no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court”), the trial court was reversed and the judgment overturned.   The moral of the case for trial judges should be that simply dividing assets by what ‘feels’ right or equitable without careful determination and notation of the actual value of those assets will result in abuse of the court’s discretion and allow successful challenges by those that feel the baby was not properly divided at the trial court level.

In order to help ensure your assets are protected in a divorce and that you are not on the wrong end of a Solomonic division in your divorce case, contact the skilled and experienced family law attorneys at Icard Merrill for a consultation today.