Two fathers, whose former wife took their children to eastern Europe for vacation and did not return the children to the United States in violation of the applicable custody orders, were able to locate the children in France and have them returned to their respective custody after a multiple year search and an emergency court proceeding. The mother faces criminal charges in California for not returning the children to the United States.  See Dad leads international search

Categories: Custody, Uncategorized Tags: , ,

Same-sex couples have been given expanded recognition in federal law matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits. The states that do not recognize same-sex marriages will apply the benefits in those instances where the U.S. Government has jurisdiction. See NBC News re same-sex couple benefits

Categories: Same-Sex Marriage Tags: ,

A Federal Judge in Texas has ruled that the state’s law banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. However, the Judge ruled that the law would remain in place until the matter was heard on appeal by the Federal Appeals Court. See Bloomberg article

Categories: Same-Sex Marriage Tags: ,

Recent applications for marriage licenses by several same-sex couples in Allegheny County were denied. See Post-Gazette article: same sex marriage licenses denied

Categories: Same-Sex Marriage Tags: ,

A Kansas sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support, despite an agreement to have no involvement and/or responsibility for the child. The sperm donor is seeking to appeal the decision. See links below.

ABC News

USA Today

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,

The filing of tax returns may be an issue for separated or divorced parties, including the filing status for the respective returns, the claiming of children as dependents, and the reporting of the payment or receipt of alimony, alimony pendente lite or spousal support. Such issues are discussed in the following article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/2014/01/10/Communication-key-for-estranged-couples-during-tax-time/stories/201401100059

Categories: Tax Issues Tags: , , , , ,

In Kimock v. Jones, 47 A.3d 850 (Pa.Super. 2012), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in the parties’ child support proceeding. The parties were married for eleven years, having one daughter during such time. Father was physically and verbally abusive to Mother and the child. After the parties’ separation, Father went extended periods without seeing the child, including a four year period without having contact with his daughter. Reunification therapy with Father and daughter was unsuccessful. A custody order was entered that provided Mother sole legal and physical custody and limited Father’s time with the child to periods permitted by Mother. Father then filed a petition to terminate his child support obligation regarding his daughter. Father alleged that the custody order was the equivalent of a termination of his parental rights and that he should no longer be required to pay child support. The trial court rejected Father’s argument. The Superior Court affirmed

the decision of the trial court, stating that the obligation to support one’s child does not depend on a parent’s custodial rights or the amount of time the parent spends with the child. The Superior Court reasoned that Father had failed to prove that the custody order alone constituted a material and substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the support award, especially in light of the fact that the restrictions on Father’s custody time were the result of his own improper behavior.

Categories: Child Support, Uncategorized Tags: , ,

In Lugg v. Lugg, 64 A.3d 1109 (Pa.Super. 2013), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the parties’ postnuptial agreement. Husband and Wife were married for approximately 13 years, having had three children during the course of their marriage. In August, 2010, in contemplation of divorce, the parties began negotiating a postnuptial agreement. During the negotiations, Wife sent Husband multiple letters stating that she would not seek full disclosure or child support. The parties continued to negotiate, including communications through their counsel. In December, 2010, Husband presented Wife with the agreement; both parties then executed it. They also executed the deed to transfer the marital residence. Thereafter, the parties transferred the titles to their vehicles and Husband provided Wife a check for $10,000. In May, 2011, Wife filed for child support. Husband then filed a motion to enforce the postnuptial agreement

and for contempt for Wife’s failure to execute documents required under the postnuptial agreement. Wife filed a counter-motion seeking to invalidate the postnuptial agreement. The trial court determined that the postnuptial agreement was valid and enforceable. Mother appealed the trial court’s decision. In her appeal, Mother asserted that the postnuptial agreement had to be invalidated because of a lack of full disclosure. The Superior Court stated that the postnuptial agreement was to be evaluated under contract principles, and that absent fraud, misrepresentation or duress, spouses should be held to the terms of their agreements. The Superior Court further stated that inquiry into the reasonableness of agreements is not permitted. The Superior Court further ruled that disclosure can be waived by a party, even if the party waiving disclosure does not know the extent of what is being waived, particularly if the waiver is voluntary and in writing.

Categories: Agreements, Uncategorized Tags: , , ,

The Superior Court addressed the termination of a father’s parental rights in regards to a same-sex couple’s adoption In the Matter of L.J.I., 57 A.3d 1278 (Pa.Super. 2012). In the case, Mother and Father were not married, and their relationship ended prior to Mother giving birth to a daughter. Father saw his daughter during the first year of her life, but his involvement steadily decreased thereafter, with Father only seeing the child a handful of times after August, 2009. Mother began a relationship with a same-sex domestic partner. Mother and her partner were married in a civil ceremony in New York in 2011. Mother’s domestic partner helped care for and raise the child, developing a relationship with her. In December, 2011, Mother filed a petition for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights. Mother’s petition stated

that her partner intended to adopt the child if Father’s rights were terminated; however, the domestic partner never filed a petition for adoption or an intention of adoption. At the termination hearing, Mother failed to present evidence regarding her partner adopting the child. The trial court denied Mother’s petition, holding that although the termination would not negatively impact the child, Mother had failed to prove the “planned adoption” element necessary to terminate Father’s parental rights. Mother then appealed the decision. The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, ruling that a petition to terminate a natural parent’s rights filed by one natural parent against the other is cognizable only if an adoption of the child is foreseeable. The Superior Court reasoned that Mother had failed to meet the statutory requirements and her petition therefore had to be denied. The Superior Court noted that same-sex couple adoptions were permissible in Pennsylvania.

Categories: Adoption Tags: , ,

Do spouses who are separated, but not divorced, have to worry about losing their beneficiary status under life insurance policies or pension plans of the other spouse?

Generally, the named beneficiary under life insurance or annuity contracts can be changed by direction of the owner of the policy without notice to the beneficiary. Most all private employer sponsored retirement plans are subject to federal law that requires married employees to name their spouses beneficiary, and this cannot be changed without written spousal consent witnessed by a retirement plan official or signed before a notary public. These plans are “qualified” under the Internal Revenue Code giving the employers a tax deduction for contributions made on behalf of the employee. Some executive plans that are not qualified for tax deduction by the employer are not subject to this rule and beneficiary interests, if any, could be changed without notice. Most typically, these non-qualified executive plans are available only to corporate offices or other highly compensated

corporate employees. Importantly, State and municipal government plans, covering tens of thousands of state and local government employees, are not subject to the federal law that requires spousal beneficiary designation. Under these government plans, the employee can remove his or her spouse as beneficiary with no notice to that spouse. In these cases, court action is required to obtain an order of court restricting changes in beneficiary designation. There have been cases where a change in beneficiary designation under a state or local government plan has made followed by the employee’s unexpected death, leaving the pension interest to pass to persons other than the surviving spouse. What has happened before will happen again.

In this highly technical area, separated spouses should consult an attorney early.

Categories: Divorce, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , ,