The law for some time has been that there is a 90 day waiting period from the date of filing a divorce to the date the divorce can be granted.  An exception to the rule has been that, if you take the Divorce Education Class for Divorcing Parents and the Divorce Orientation Course for Divorcing Parents, the 90 day waiting period would be waived and your divorce could go through before 90 days had elapsed from the day you filed divorce.  This exception was put in place when the courses were first introduced as optional for divorcing parents to encourage them to take the classes.

Since the classes were first introduced as optional though highly recommended, they have now become mandatory in all divorce classes where minor children  are involved.  This has resulted in an odd twist in the law, that divorcing parties without children had to wait 90 days, and parents with children who took the classes could be divorced sooner.  Sometimes parties without children took the classes just to expedite their divorces!

Now, generally, all divorcing parties have to wait 90 days from the date of filing to get their divorces signed.  Of course, there are exceptions and the 90 day waiting period can be waived, but the courts have indicated they are tightening up and scrutinizing those requests more carefully.

EXCEPTION: Utah Code Section 30-3-18(1)  “Unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist and otherwise orders, no hearing for decree of divorce may be held by the court until 90 days has elapsed from the filing of the complaint, but the court may make interim orders as it considers just and equitable.”

Bottom line: In Utah you have to wait 90 days from the date you file for divorce for your divorce to be final unless you have extraordinary circumstances.

• The parties are not yet ready to mediate and the mediation is held prematurely.  (One way to overcome this failure is to set up a second session after the court hearing for temporary orders is held).
• An attorney sets unrealistic expectations for their client.
• The attorney wants more money in the litigation process.
• The emotion of a party is not validated.
• The attorney lacks experience in the field in which they are mediating.  (This often happens in domestic law cases when a party’s lawyer ”friend”  is going to help the party out in their family law matter by representing them,even though the lawyer does not customarily practice family law.)
• The wrong mediator is chosen (different styles of mediator).
• The party is not properly prepared with information needed to have a settlement.
• The party opens negotiations with their bottom line and is not willing to move.
• The party is not willing to come to a settlement and is using the process just to meet the requirement to mediate.
• The walkaway option is better than the option being proposed in mediation.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this to convert to a helpful dialogue and resource.

On my individual legal blog I once discussed the concept that a party must “get real.”  Today one difficulty is that we didn’t have enough of the facts, let alone all of the facts, that the parties could agree on or that the parties could rely on in order to arrive at the same place for an agreement.   It is hard for parties to “get real” if they don’t know what the real facts of the case are

Personalities can be a difficulty at mediation.  In fact, some parties or attorneys may simply not be wired in an appropriate way to be successful in resolving cases in mediation.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this to convert to a helpful dialogue and resource.

If you must pay with cash (not advisable), get a receipt signed by the receiving parent stating how much they are paid and that it is for child support.

If you provide payment in kind (groceries, gas, utilities, diapers, etc.) [not advised], get a receipt from the receiving parent stating the value and that the “payment in kind” is in lieu of payment in cash of a certain amount of money – the amount spent on the “stuff.”

If you pay with a check (recommended), make sure and put on the memo line that it is for child support, and, even better, for what time period (e.g. May 2012).

If you have questions about child support, reply to this post.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this to convert to a helpful dialogue and resource.

Research also shows that, due to the voluntary nature of mediation, when compromise is reached between opposing parties after negotiating in good faith, having fully disclosed all relevant information and are the parties are empowered because they are fully informed, the agreement made is more durable that a court imposed resolution.  This means that parties are less apt to try and go back on their agreement to change it when resolution is reached in a good mediation.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this to convert to a helpful dialogue and resource.

The person that is made a crazy by these “crazy making behaviors” is the other party because the other party doesn’t know how to handle the other party’s crazy behavior: ignore it, respond to it?  So how do you avoid being made crazy by an opposing parties irrational behavior?

The most common question my “sane” clients ask themselves that causes them to spiral into insanity is, “Why?”   My clients ask themselves the following kinds of questions: 

• “Why is he/she doing that?” 
• “What is he/she thinking?” 
• “Why doesn’t he/she do . . . [some logical act] ?” 

If you find yourself asking these questions over and over again during your family law case, either stop asking or go to your own mental health treatment provider and ask them the questions so that your counselor can help you decide whether there is an answer to your questions or if you just need to drop it, assess the facts and proceed with your case regardless of the opposing parties irrational and illogical actions.

After a certain point, asking yourself why somebody does something or trying to figure out what they are thinking when they are engaging in crazy behavior will only drive you crazy.  The trick is to identify when it is still safe and healthy for you to be asking, answering and acting upon your answers to these questions (to defend or prosecute your case) or when there really are no answers to your “Why?” questions and move on with your own plan decisively.

In short, don’t get sucked into overanalyzing the opposing parties crazy making behavior and letting their behavior negatively impact and influence you.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this blog to become a helpful dialogue and resource.

A parent will be hauled into court for failure to pay child support.  The parent will say that they have lost their job, or their income has been reduced for some reason or another, and they just can’t pay child support.  The commissioner’s response, ” I don’t understand zero.”

This statement doesn’t come when a parent has been making some kind of payments, even if it is not the full amount that is owed.  At least the parent seems to be trying.  But what the commissioner cannot understand is how a parent can eat themselves and not provide for their child or children to eat – “I don’t understand zero.”

Lesson learned: if you are struggling to pay your child support obligation for any reason, and you don’t want to go to jail for contempt, pay whatever you can.  Keep a close accounting of your income and outflow of money so that you can show what you are spending your money on that is not fully paying your child support.  But, do NOT fail to pay some child support, as you will get no sympathy or understanding from the judge/commissioner if you don’t pay any child support at all.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this blog to become a helpful dialogue and resource.

UVU’S LEGAL STUDIES PROGRAM TO SPONSOR FREE LEGAL CLINIC

Through a joint effort between Utah Valley University’s Legal Studies Program and the local legal community, those in need of legal services will be able to receive free legal advice at a clinic scheduled for Oct. 25 in the UVU Library.

“This is an important service for the low income or middle income in the community who cannot afford an attorney,” said Jill Jasperson, associate director of UVU’s Center for the Study of Ethics. “It is designed to help them with their legal issues and problems.”

The legal consultation clinic, set from 6-8:30 p.m. in the Timpanogos Room on the fourth floor of the UVU Library, is in conjunction with National Pro Bono Week. Attorneys with varying expertise – including family law, employment law, civil rights, commercial law, contracts law, disability law, landlord-tenant law, criminal law, personal injury law, bankruptcy, commercial law, immigration law and estate planning – will be available to provide legal advice and guidance on most every legal issue.

“All UVU faculty, staff and students are invited, along with anyone in the Utah County area who might have a legal issue and a need for legal guidance,” Jasperson said. “All of the legal services will be donated from the local legal community.”

Participants need to bring all documentation necessary to explain and assist in their cases. The brief consultations, with an attorney and paralegal student present, will take place in a private room. A notary public will also be available. Services are rendered on a first-come, first-serve basis. Depending on demand, there might be a short waiting period. Parking is available in the lot L-7, north of the Library.

“At the past two clinics, we’re estimating that more than $30,000 worth of legal services were rendered by the local legal community,” Jasperson said.

The clinic is also sponsored by the Woodbury School of Business, the UVU Center for the Study of Ethics, Utah Community Credit Union and the Central Utah Bar Association.
For more information contact the UVU Legal Studies Office at 801-863-8134, or Mike Rigert, UVU communications manager at 801-863-6807.

About UVU
Utah Valley University is located in Orem, Utah, and is home to nearly 33,000 students. UVU began as a vocational school during World War II, and in the seven decades since has evolved into a technical school, community college, state college and, finally, a comprehensive regional teaching university. UVU is one of Utah’s largest institutions of higher learning and offers programs ranging from career training to high-demand master degrees, with emphasis on undergraduate education.

The opposing party-parent claimed that my client-parent, allegedly based on information provided by my client, was going to have the young children walking to school on very large and dangerous roads to and from school and that the parties’ young children would be left alone at home before and after school because of my client’s work schedule, leaving home and arriving home without any adult present in the children’s primary residence.  The opposing party-parent’s allegations were completely unfounded, based on assumptions on hearsay, without any personal knowledge of any kind of evidence, admissible or otherwise, to present to the court.

The fact was that my client-parent had not informed the opposing party parent of my client-parent’s enrollment of the parties’ children in their new school, how the parties’ children would or would not be transported to school, or what my client-parent’s work schedule was going to be or how my client-parent’s work schedule would line-up with the parties’ children’s school schedule.  My client-parent had already arranged a work schedule allow daily accompanying of the parties’ children to school from their home and from school to their home, providing full-time personal, parental care for the parties’ children before and after school.  The opposing party-parent’s claims regarding my client-parent’s alleged intended plans for the parties’ children based on the opposing party-parent’s conversation(s) with my client-parent were simply untrue, as there had been no such alleged conversations.

While there was no merit to the opposing party-parent’s claim and the relief sought by the opposing party-parent was denied, the court did not award my client-parent attorney fees.  What?

The judge began his ruling by stating, “This is an expensive way to have a conversation.”  In the end, the judge’s ruling to not award my client-parent attorney fees even though the opposing party’s claim was meritless and the TRO was denied was based on the court’s finding that my client-parent (by my client-parent’s admission) had not informed the opposing party-parent of: my client-parent’s registration of the parties’ young children in the “new” local school; how the parties’ children were going to be transported to school; that my client-parent would be providing personal, parental care at all times for the parties’ young children daily before and after school, or; what my client-parent’s daily work schedule was going to be to accommodate my client-parent’s ability to provide that personal, parental care for the parties’ young children.

So what is the lesson learned?
In a divorce/post-divorce situation where there is a minor child(ren) of the two divorcing/divorced parties, as a divorcing/divorced co-parent, you must (absent other intervening factors or orders) learn to communicate with your co-parent, your child(ren)’s other parent.  It is always best if parent-parties can get along and communicate civilly via telephone, e-mail, or text.  However, if you feel your co-parent is difficult or uncivil, you MUST communicate in writing (keep a copy for yourself of everything you send).  I prefer my clients communicate with their co-parent via e-mail, my next choice is traditional U.S. Mail, and I hate cell phone texts (these are really hard to capture and introduce as evidence to the court).

The key here is that you MUST communicate.  After the experience I have shared above, I recommended that my client-parent that my client-parent communicate in writing to the opposing party/co-parent regarding the parties’ children at least every 1-2 weeks, giving updates on activities, events, etc.  Putting all communications in writing (and keeping a copy) creates a record of communication that documents your good faith efforts to share information with your co-parent.  All other things being equal, had my client-parent communicated in writing to the opposing party/co-parent, my client-parent would have been awarded attorney fees or, even better, we wouldn’t even have been in court in the first place.

Please comment, add, refute, clarify or inquire regarding this posting if you are so inclined.  I would love for this blog to become a helpful dialogue and resource.