Family Law Newsletter - The Beliveau Law Group

FFamily
amily Law
La w
page 2
page
C
ustody order
order couldn’t
couldn’t favor
favor
Custody
oone
ne parent’s
parent’s religion
religion
sspring
pring 2012
2012
Mother
M
other ccouldn’t
ouldn’t be
be fforced
orced ttoo
move
m
ove to
to aaccommodate
ccommodate vvisitation
isitation
Man
M
an could
could bbring
ring ppaternity
aternity claim
claim
married
woman
aagainst
gainst m
arried w
oman
ppage
age 3
FFederal
ederal ggovernment
overnment bbenefits
enefits
ccan
an bbee ddivided
ivided aatt ddivorce
ivorce
ppage
age 4
Couple
C
ouple oordered
rdered ttoo rreveal
eveal
ppasswords
asswords ffor
or ddating
ating ssites,
ites,
FFacebook
acebook
Must ccouples
Must
ouples share
share pproperty
roperty
tthey
hey aacquire
cquire aafter
fter tthey
hey ssplit
plit up?
up?
M
oost
st ppeople
eople aassume
ssume that
that a ddivorcing
ivorcing ccouple’s
ouple’s aassets
ss e t s
will
will bbee divided
divided according
according to
to what
what they
they own
own at
at the
t he
time
time they
they separate.
separate. But
But in
in some
some cases,
cases, things
things that
that
happen
happen after
after a couple
couple split
split up
up can
can affect
affect what
what
they’re
they’re entitled
entitled to
to in
in a divorce.
divorc
Only
O
nly an
an attorney
at t o r n e y w
with
ith eexpertise
xp
in divorce law can
determine
determine exactly
exactly what
what yyou
ou might be entitled to…so it’s
iimportant
mportant ttoo ttell
ell yyour
our aattorney
ttorn about anything that could
affect
affect the
the pprospects
rospects of
of both
both you and your spouse down
the
the road.
ro a d .
Take
T
ake tthe
he ccase
ase of
of a man
man in
in SSouth Carolina who
was
w
as a 225%
5% ppartner
artner iin
n a rreal
eal estate
e
development
pproject
roject aatt the
the ttime
ime he
he and
and hhis
is wife filed for
ddivorce.
ivorce. W
While
hile the
the divorce
divorce w
was
a pendiing,
ng, the
the value
value of
of hhis
is share
share
iincreased…and
ncreased…and his
his ppartner
ar t n e r
tthen
hen bbought
ought oout
ut hhis
is iinterest
nterest iin
tthe
he pproject
roject for
for $$1.6
1.6 m
million.
illion.
The
T
he w
wife
ife wanted
wanted ttoo sshare
hare iin
the
the iincreased
ncreased vvalue
alue ooff the
t he
©isto
ckpho
to.com
/Alex
partnership,
partnership, while
while tthe
he hhusus Slobod
kin
band
band aargued
rgued tthat
hatt his
his interest
interest
should
should bbee valued
valued aass of
of the
the date
date they
they filed
filed ffor
or ddivorce.
ivorce.
The SSouth
outh Carolina
Carolina SSupreme
upreme Court
Court ruled
ruled that
that the
the appreciation
appreciation
The
in value
value could
could bbee included
included in
in the
the couple’s
couple’s marital
marital property
property iiff iitt
in
occurred “passively,
“passively ” meaning
meaning it
it was
was ddue
ue ttoo factors
factors other
other tthan
han the
t he
occurred
efforts of the spouse.
aid, the
the appreciaappreciaIn this case, the court said,
it was
was due
due primaprimation was “passive” because it
band’s partner,
partner, not
not
rily to the efforts of the husband’s
re, the
the wife
wife could
could
those of the husband. Therefore,
share in the increase.
irginia received
received
In another case, a woman in Virginia
whhile she
she was
was marm ar stock options from her employer while
until after
after she
she had
h ad
ried, but options didn’t vest until
u s b an d .
separated from her husband.
The wife
wife argued
arg u e d
The
hat because
because the
t he
that
options hadn’t
hadn’t
options
yet vested
vested when
whhen
yet
hey were
were her
her own
own
the couple split up, they
separate property.
upreme Court
Court
But the Virginia Supreme
ccontinued
ontinued oonn page
page 3
BE
ELIVEAU
LIIV
VE
V
EAU LA
AW
W GRO
ROUP
OUP, L
LLC
LC
Massachusetts
M
assachusetts offices:
offices: Waltham,
Waltham, M
MA;
A; D
Danvers,
anvers, M
MA;
A; aand
nd Q
Quincy,
uincy, MA
MA
N
ew H
ampshire ooffices:
ffices: Manchester,
Manchester,, N
H aand
nd S
alem, N
H
New
Hampshire
NH
Salem,
NH
Florida offices:
offices: Boca
Boca Raton,
Raton, FL
FL and
and Naples,
Naples, FL
FL
Florida
Main Telephone
Telephone Number:
Number: (781)
(781) 890-8600
890-8600 • Email:
Email: [email protected]
[email protected] • Website:
Website: www.beliveaulaw.com
www.beliveaulaw.com
Main
Custody
C
ustody oorder
rder couldn’t
couldn’t favor
favor oone
ne pparent’s
arent’s rreligion
eligion
A custody
custody oorder
rder
tthat
hat gave
gave one
one
sspouse’s
pouse’s rreligion
eligion
priority over
over all
all other
other
priority
issues vviolated
iolated tthe
he
issues
separation of
of church
church
separation
and state.
sta te.
and
Wee welcome
W
welcome yyour
our rreferrals
eferrals.
We vvalue
We
alue all
all oour
ur clients.
clients.
AAnd
nd w
while
hile we’re
we’re a bbusy
usy ffirm,
irm,
wee w
w
welcome
elcome aallll referrals.
referrals.
IIff yyou
ou refer
refer ssomeone
omeone ttoo us,
us,
we
we ppromise
romise to
to aanswer
nswer ttheir
heir
questions
questions and
and provide
provide them
them
w
with
ith ffirst-rate,
irst-rate, aattentive
ttentive
service.
service. And
And iiff yyou’ve
ou’ve aalready
lready
referred
referred someone
someone to
to our
our firm,
firm,
thank
thank you!
you!
There’s no
no question
question that
that
There’s
child custody
custody order
order can
can
a child
take the
the parents’
parents’ religion
religion –
take
and the
the children’s
children’s religious
religious
and
education and
and observance
observance
education
into account.
account. But
But a
– into
recent case
case shows
shows that
that a
recent
custody order
order that
that goes
goes too
too
custody
far in
in favor
favor of
of one
one parent’s
parent’s
far
religion might
might not
not be
be okay.
okay.
religion
In this
this case,
case, Howard
Howard
In
Rosenstein wanted
wanted to
to raise
r ai s e
Rosenstein
his two
two children
children as
as Jews.
Jews. A
his
custody order
order allowed
allowed him
him
custody
to have
have the
the children
children on
on all
all Wednesday
Wednesday evenings
evenings and
an d
to
Sunday mornings
mornings so
so they
they could
could attend
attend Jewish
Jewish relireliSunday
gious training,
training, and
and also
also said
said that
that he
he could
could have
have cusc us gious
tody on
on major
major Jewish
Jewish holidays,
holidays, including
including Passover
Passover
tody
and all
all eight
eight days
days of
of Hanukkah.
Hanukkah. The
The father’s
father’s right
right to
to
and
the children
children on
on these
these occasions
occasions would
would take
take preceprecethe
dence over
over all
all other
other custody
custody arrangements.
arrangements.
dence
On appeal,
appeal, however,
however, the
the Texas
Texas Court
Court of
of Appeals
Appeals
On
questioned whether
whether this
this order
order went
went too
too far.
far. It
It noted,
noted,
questioned
for instance,
instance, that
that the
the mother
mother would
would never
never be
be able
able to
to
for
see her
her children
children on
on Christmas,
Christmas, New
New Year’s
Year’s or
or Easter
Easter
see
if those
those dates
dates conflicted
conffllicted with
with a Hanukkah
Hanukkah or
or
if
Passover
Passover celebration.
celebration.
After
After reviewing
reviewing the
the case,
case, the
the court
court decided
decided that
thatt
the
the order
order violated
violated the
the First
First Amendment
Amendment of
of the
the U.S.
U.S.
Constitution,
Constitution, which
which governs
governs the
the separation
separation of
of
church
church and
and state
state and
and says
says that
that the
the government
government can’t
can’t
favor
favor one
one religion
religion over
over others.
others.
As
As long
long as
as there
there was
was nothing
nothing illegal
illegal or
or immoral
i m m or a l
about
about the
the mother’s
mother’s religious
religious preference
preference – or
or even
e ve n
lack
lack of
of a religious
religious preference
preference – a custody
custody order
o rd e r
that
that gave
gave her
her husband’s
husband’s religion
religion absolute
absolute priority
pr i or it y
over
over all
all other
other considerations
considerations was
was too
too extreme,
extreme, the
t he
court
court ruled.
r u le d.
Mother didn’t
Mother
didn’t have
have ttoo move
move
ttoo aaccommodate
ccommodate vvisitation
isitation
Paternity cclaim
Paternity
laim against
against
married
m
arried woman
woman aallowed
llowed
Am
mother
other w
who
ho m
moved
oved ffrom
rom M
Missouri
issouri ttoo Ohio
Ohio ccan’t
an’t
bbee legally
legally rrequired
equired ttoo move
move bback
ack ttoo Missouri
Missouri in
in
oorder
rder to
to aaccommodate
ccommodate the
the father’s
father’s visitation
visitation rrights,
ights,
the
the Missouri
Missouri Supreme
Supreme C
Court
ourt rrecently
ecently decided.
de c ide d.
The
The mother
mother had
had ggiven
iven birth
birth to
to a child
child out
out ooff
wedlock.
wedlock. A
After
fter the
the father’s
father’s paternity
paternity was
was established
established
through
through biological
biological testing,
testing, he
he filed
filed a llawsuit
awsuit seeking
s e e k i ng
custody
custody or
or visitation.
visitation.
The
The mother
mother had
h ad m
moved
oved to
to Ohio
Ohio w
while
hile the
the case
c as e
was
was pending.
pending. A judge
judge awarded
awarded her
her custody,
custody, but
but
ordered
ordered her
her to
to return
return to
to Missouri
Missouri so
so it
it would
would be
be
easier
easier for
for the
the father
father to
to visit
visit the
the child.
ch i l d .
But
But on
on aappeal,
ppeal, the
the Missouri
Missouri Supreme
Supreme C
Court
ourt said
s ai d
this
this was
was wrong,
wrong, bbecause
ecause a judge
judge has
has no
no right
right ttoo
fforce
orce parents
parents ttoo relocate
relocate from
from ttheir
heir cchosen
hosen pplace
l ac e
ooff rresidence.
esidence.
Am
man
an ccan
an sue
sue ttoo establish
establish tthat
hat he’s
he’s tthe
he father
father
ooff a child
child born
born to
to a m
married
arried woman
woman with
with w
whom
hom
hhee had
had aan
n aaffair,
ffair, tthe
he K
Kentucky
entucky Supreme
Supreme C
Court
ourt
rrecently
ecently ruled.
r u le d.
The
T
he m
mother
other hhad
ad sstopped
topped the
the aaffair
ffair when
when sshe
he
llearned
earned that
that she
she w
was
as ppregnant.
regnant. Shortly
Shortly after
after tthe
he
cchild’s
hild’s birth,
birth, ggenetic
enetic ttesting
esting rrevealed
evealed tthat
hat the
the man
m an
was
w
as aactually
ctually the
the father.
father.
When
W
hen tthe
he man
man ssued
ued ttoo establish
establish hhis
is paternity,
paternity,
tthe
he m
mother
other aargued
rgued tthat
hat uunder
nder sstate
tate llaw,
aw, such
such a ssuit
uit
ccould
ould be
be bbrought
rought only
only if
if a cchild
hild was
was bborn
orn oout
ut ooff
wedlock.
w
e d l o ck .
But
B
ut the
the court
court ruled
ruled tthat
hat the
the cchild
hild iin
n this
this ccase
as e
was
w
as iin
n ffact
act bborn
orn ““out
out ooff w
wedlock,
edlock,” since
since the
the mother
mother
wasn’t
w
asn’t married
married ttoo tthe
he cchild’s
hild’s bbiological
iological father
fat
ather at
at tthe
he
ttime
ime of
of cconception.
onception.
©istockphoto.com/MaryLB
©
istockphoto.com/MaryLB
FFederal
ederal government
government bbenefits
enefits ccan
an be
be ddivided
ivided at divorce
FFederal
ederal government
government benefits
benefits – such
such aass ffrom
rom
Social
Social Security
Security oorr the
the military
militar y – hhave
ave their
their own
own
rules,
rules, and
and tthose
hose rrules
ules uusually
sually trump
trump state
state llaw.
aw.. So
So
sometimes
sometimes it’s
it’s uunclear
nclear whether
whether a sstate
tatte ddivorce
ivorce court
court
can
can ddivide
ivide uupp a federal
federal ppayment.
ayment.
However,
H
oweever, iin
n sseveral
everal rrecent
ecent ccases,
ases, it
it was
was determined
determined
that
that federal
federal ppayments
ayments ccould
ould bbee split
split at
at divorce.
divorce.
•Am
military
ilitary retiree’s
retiree’s hhealth
ealth iinsurance
nsurance benefits
benefits ccan
an
Alaska
bbee ssplit
plit aatt ddivorce,
ivorce, the
the A
laska SSupreme
upreme Court
Court decided.
decided.
That’s
T
hat’s bbecause
ecause of
of a ffederal
ederal law
law ccalled
alled tthe
he
U
Uniformed
niformed Services
S er vices FFormer
ormer SSpouse
p ou s e P
Protection
ro t e c t i o n
A
Act.
c t. U
Under
nder tthat
hat llaw,
aw, m
military
ilitar y rretirement
etirement ppay
ay can
c an
bbee eeither
ither iindividual
ndividual pproperty
roperty oorr m
marital
arital pproperty,
roperty,
d
depending
epending oon
n a sstate’s
tate’s oown
wn divorce
divorce llaws.
aws. A
And
nd
tthough
hough llaws
aws d
differ
iffer bbetween
etween sstates,
tates, iin
nA
Alaska
laska ssuch
uch
bbenefits
enefits are
are cconsidered
o n s i d e re d m
arital pproperty.
roperty.
marital
•V
Veterans’
eterans’ disability
disability benefits
benefits ccan
an be
be ttaken
aken into
into
account
account iin
n ddeciding
eciding hhow
ow m
much
uch alimony
alimony a vveteran’s
eteran’s
ex-wife
ex-wife is
is eentitled
ntitled tto,
o, tthe
he SSouth
outh Dakota
Dakota Supreme
Supreme
Court
Court recently
recently rruled.
u le d.
A ffederal
ederal llaw
aw pprohibits
rohibits the
the seizure
seizure or
or ttaxation
axattion of
of
VA
VA ddisability
isability bbenefits.
enefits But the
court
court said
said tthe
he bbenefits
enefit could be
considered
considered iin
n ddeciding
ecidin a proper
amount
amount of
of alimony,
alimony, because
b
that’s
different
different from
from sseizing
eizing them to pay a
debt
debt oorr imposing
imposing a tax
ta on them.
• A woman
woman receiving
receivin Social
Security
might
Security disability
disability benefits
be
have
have to
to pay
pay some
some ooff the
t money
as
as child
child support,
support, says
says the
Kentucky
Kentucky Supreme
Supreme Court.
Co
In
In tthat
hat case,
case, an
an uunmarried
nm
father
was
was awarded
awarded custody.
custody The mother,
whose
whose mental
mental illness
illness made her unable
to
to w
work
ork or
or m
manage
anage her
he own affairs, fell
behind
behind in
in her
her support
suppor obligations.
But
But the
the court
court said
said the
the fact that she
was
was receiving
receiving ffederal
ederal disability benefits
fits didn’t
didn’t excuse
excuse her
her from paying
what
what sshe
he could
could ttoward
owar caring for her
child.
ch i l d .
©istockphoto.com/DNY59
©
istockphoto.com/DNY59
Must
M
ust couples
couples share
share pr
property
roperrtty they
they aacquire
cquire aafter
fter tthey
hey split
sppllit up?
up?
ccontinued
ontinued ffrom
rom ppage
age 1
ddecided
ecided that
that eeven
ven if
if tthe
he options
options hhadn’t
adn’t vvested,
ested, they
t he y
ccould
ould still
still be
be ddivided
ivided aatt divorce
divorce iin
n a ssimilar
i m i l ar w
ay ttoo
way
oother
ther types
types ooff ddeferred
eferred ccompensation,
ompensation, ssuch
uch aass penp enssions
ions oorr rretirement
etirement bbenefits.
enefits.
AP
ennsylvania case
case iinvolved
nvolved a ccouple
ouple w
ho hhad
ad a
Pennsylvania
who
ppending
ending ppersonal
ersonal injury
injur y llawsuit
awsuit when
when tthey
he y
ddivorced.
ivorced.
IIn
n tthat
hat case,
case, the
the hhusband
usband hhad
ad been
been seriously
seriously
iinjured
njured in
in aan
n accident
accident att a rracetrack.
acetrack. The
The ccouple
ouple
ssued
ued for
for tthe
he injury,
injur y, but
but tthey
hey sseparated
eparated before
before the
t he
ccase
as e w
as ssettled.
ettled.
was
A
fter the
the case
c as e w
as ssettled,
ettled, tthe
he wife
wife aargued
rgued tthat
hat
After
was
sshe
he sshould
hould gget
et a sshare
hare ooff $$60,000
60,000 iin
n settlement
settlement
m
oney.
money.
The
T
he Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme
Supreme Court
Court sided
sided w
with
ith tthe
he
w
wife,
ife, rruling
uling that
that bbecause
ecause tthe
he couple
couple were
were m
married
arried
w
when
hen the
the iinjury
njury occurred
occurred aand
nd when
when tthe
he ssuit
uit w
was
as filed,
filed,
any
any pproceeds
roceeds from
from the
the ssuit
uit were
were marital
marital pproperty.
roperty.
IIn
n yyet
et aanother
nother case,
case, a divorcing
divorcing ccouple
ouple iin
n
Vermont
V
ermont ddidn’t
idn’t have
have m
much
uch money,
money, but
but tthe
he hhusband
u s b an d
came
came ffrom
rom a wealthy
wealthy ffamily,
amily, and
and it
it was
was likely
likely that
that hhee
would
would inherit
inherit ssignificant
ignificant aassets
ssets iin
n tthe
he ffuture
uture
through
through ffamily
am i ly w
wills
ills aand
nd ttrusts.
rusts. The
T he w
wife
ife argued
arg u e d
that
that tthis
his sshould
hould bbee considered
considered in
in ddividing
ividing up
up the
t he
marital
marital aassets.
ss e t s .
The
T
he Vermont
Vermont SSupreme
upreme C
Court
ourt aagreed,
greed, ssaying
aying tthat
hat
eeven
ven tthough
hough tthe
he hhusband’s
usband’s potential
potential iinheritances
nheritances
w
weren’t
eren’t pproperty
roperty – tthey
hey w
were
ere merely
merely aann ““expectancy”
expectancy” –
tthey
hey ccould
ould sstill
till bbee cconsidered
onsidered when
when ddividing
ividing tthe
he ccououpple’s
le’s aassets,
ssets, so
so that
that tthe
he w
wife
ife ccould
ould gget
et a llarger
arger sshare.
hare.
Off course,
O
course, as
as aalways,
lways, the
the llaw
aw can
can vary
var y ffrom
rom sstate
tate
ttoo sstate
tate aand
nd ffrom
rom ccase
ase to
to ccase.
as e. B
But
ut it’s
it’s iimportant
mportant ttoo
tell
tell yyour
our family
family law
law attorney
attorney aabout
bout possible
possible future
future
events
events tthat
hat ccould
ould aaffect
ffect eeither
ither yyou
ou oorr your
your sspouse,
pouse,
because
might
because they
t he y m
ight be
be relevant
relevant to
to a ddivorce.
ivorce.
TThis
his newsletter
newsletttter is
is ddesigned
esigned to
to keep
keep yyou
ou up-to-date
up-to-date with
with cchanges
hanges in
in tthe
he law.
law. FFor
or hhelp
elp with
with tthese
hese or
or any
any oother
ther legal
legal issues,
issues, please
please call
call oour
ur firm
firm today.
today. The
The iinformation
nformation in
in this
this newsletter
newsletttter iiss
without
with
iintended
ntended ssolely
olely ffor
or yyour
our information.
information. ItIt ddoes
oes nnot
ot constitute
constitute legal
legal aadvice,
dvice, and
and iitt should
should nnot
ot bbee relied
relied on
on w
ithout a ddiscussion
iscussion of
of yyour
our specific
specific situation
situation w
ith an
an attorney.
attttorney.
IIt’s
t’s vvery
ery iimportant
mportant to
to
tell your
your ffamily
amily law
la w
tell
attorney about
about
attorney
possible ffuture
uture
possible
eevents
vents tthat
hat could
could
aaffect
ffect eeither
ither yyou
ou
oorr yyour
our sspouse.
pouse.
sspring
pring 2012
2012
Couple
C
ouple ordered
ordered to
to rreveal
eveal ppasswords
asswords ffor
or dating
dating sites,
sites, FFacebook
acebook
People w
People
who
ho aare
re
tthinking
hinking about
about divorce
divorce
should nnever
ever post
post
should
anything oonline
nline that
tha t
anything
they wouldn’t
wouldn’t w
ant to
to
they
want
be rrevealed
evealed iinn court.
court.
be
A jjudge
udge in
in C
Connecticut
onnecticut oordered
rdered a ddivorcing
ivorcing ccououple to
ple
to ggive
ive each
each oother
ther their
their passwords
passwords ttoo FFacebook,
a c e b o ok ,
eeHarmony,
Harmony, aand
nd M
Match.com,
atch.com, and
and not
not ttoo delete
delete aany
ny
iinformation
nformation ffrom
rom tthe
he ssites.
ites.
While
W
hile tthis
his is
is a highly
highly uunusual
nusual step,
step, it
it sshows
hows how
how
iincreasingly
ncreasingly rrelevant
elevant ssocial
o cia l m
media
edia aand
nd ddating
ating w
webebssites
ites aare
re to
to ddivorce
ivorce cases…and
cases…and iit’s
t’s yet
yet another
another
rreminder
eminder that
that ppeople
eople w
who
ho aare
re ccontemplating
ontemplating divorce
divorce
sshouldn’t
houldn’t post
post anything
anything online
online that
that tthey
hey wouldn’t
wouldn’t
want
w
ant ttoo be
be rrevealed
evealed during
during the
the divorce
divorce pproceedings,
roceedings,
bbecause
ecause they
t he y m
might
ight well
well be.
b e.
SStephen
te p h e n G
Gallion
allion claimed
claimed tthat
hat he
he ffound
ound some
some
iinformation
nformation oon
n his
his wife
wife Courtney’s
Courtney’s computer
computer tthat
hat
would
w
ould be
be rrelevant
elevant to
to his
his aargument
rgument that
that hhee sshould
hould
gget
et full
full ccustody
ustody of
of tthe
he ccouple’s
ouple’s cchildren.
hildren. He
He asked
asked
ffor
or Courtney’s
Courtney’s passwords,
passwords, believing
believing tthat
hat there
there m
ight
might
bbee additional
additional iinformation
nformation oon
n password-protected
password-protected
websites,
w
ebsites, and
and he
he cclaimed
laimed Courtney
Courtney immediately
immediately
bbegan
egan trying
tr ying to
to delete
delete iinformation.
nformation.
That’s
when
T
hat’s w
hen a jjudge
udge got
got involved
involved and
and told
told the
the ppair
ai r
ttoo eexchange
xchange ppasswords
asswords and
and not
not ttoo remove
remove anything
anything
websites.
ffrom
rom tthe
he w
ebsites.
BE
ELIVEAU
LIIV
VE
V
EAU LA
AW
W GRO
ROUP
OUP, L
LLC
LC
Massachusetts offices:
Massachusetts
offices: Waltham,
Waltham, M
MA;
A; D
Danvers,
anvers, M
MA;
A; aand
nd Q
Quincy,
uincy, MA
MA
N
ew H
ampshire offices:
offices: Manchester,
Manchester,, N
H aand
nd S
alem, N
H
New
Hampshire
NH
Salem,
NH
FFlorida
lorida ooffices:
ffices: Boca
Boca Raton,
Raton, FL
FL and
and Naples,
Naples, FL
FL
M
ain Telephone
Telephone Number:
Number: (781)
(781) 890-8600
890-8600
Main
EEmail:
mail: [email protected]
[email protected] • Website:
Website: www.beliveaulaw.com
www.beliveaulaw.com
©istockphoto.com/Courtney
©
istockphoto.com/Courtney Keating
Keating