Supreme Court Decision Leaves Gay Divorce Questions Unanswered

The recent Supreme Court rulings regarding gay marriage sent shockwaves through the family law world earlier this week. The overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was especially influential and will lead to massive changes in the way gay couples receive federal benefits and pay federal taxes.

One thing that will not change for the better for same sex couples is the process of divorce. In fact, legal experts say neither the DOMA ruling nor the Prop 8 case will make the process of divorce easier for gay couples. Because the Supreme Court did not rule more broadly, making same-sex marriage legal nationwide, then those married couples who do not currently reside in a state that recognizes gay marriage will have to seek a divorce in a state that does.

This back and forth means that gay divorces will remain lengthier and costlier than heterosexual splits. This is especially the case because most states have a residency requirement for divorce, meaning at least one spouse needs to establish residency in that state for a requisite period of time before the courts will agree to hear a divorce petition. For instance, in California one party must reside in the state for a period of at least six months before the family law courts will hear a divorce claim. Thankfully, there are some exceptions to that rule though, including Washington, D.C. which allows divorce without residency for couples whose marriage is not recognized in their home state.

Issues revolving around child custody will also remain complicated for same-sex couples, especially in cases where both parents have not jointly adopted the child. For instance, a non-biological parent may not receive automatic visitation rights in many states if they have not formally adopted the child, despite acting as the parent for a number of years. It is for this reason that joint adoption is so critical, as it would be heartbreaking for one parent to discover in the midst of a divorce that they have no rights to spend time with a child they love.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol Lee Stephan.

Source: “Supreme Court simplifies gay divorce,” by Quentin Fottrell, published at MarketWatch.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

Supreme Court Resolves Baby Veronica Case

The Supreme Court this week issued an important ruling in the Baby Veronica case. Formally the case is known as Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, and the case concerns a fight between the girl’s adoptive parents and her biological, Native American father.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found earlier this week that Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation, does not have parental rights to the girl under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Brown had used ICWA to take custody away from the adoptive parents, claiming that though he had signed legal documents terminating his parental rights, the federal act prevented him from losing his part-Indian child. The use of ICWA raised the ire of some in the legal world given that Brown himself is only 2 percent Cherokee while Baby Veronica is only 1.2 percent (or 3/256^th) Native American.

The majority of the Supreme Court said that Brown had abandoned the child before her birth and never had custody. The Court said that ICWA was instituted to prevent the forceful breakup of Indian families, not to prevent Indian parents from voluntarily giving up their parental rights, which is what happened in this case. The Court wrote that it would be unfair to allow Brown to play his ICWA trump card at the last second and take away the girl from her adoptive parents.

Though the Supreme Court did not formally award custody to the adoptive parents, they did remand the case to South Carolina to have the judges down there reconsider their ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s comments. The unfortunate thing now is that the girl spent the first two years of her life with her adoptive parents and the last year and half with her biological father and his new wife, getting used to her new life in Oklahoma.

There’s no easy solution to the matter, as is often the case in child custody disputes. Family law judges are left to choose between battling parents and no matter the decision someone ends up being hurt. That’s why it’s important, if at all possible, to try and remain amicable during a divorce, put your children’s needs above your own desire for revenge and come together to craft a parenting plan that works for everyone involved. Child custody is no time to settle scores, but instead an opportunity to lookout for the welfare of your kids.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Happy Ruling For Adoptive Couple, Uncertainty For Baby Girl,” by Hansi Lo Wang, published at NPR.org.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Ohio Child Support Arrearages Resemble Modern Day Debtors Prison

Online Actions Land Two Wisconsin Men In Hot Water

What To Do If You’re Considering Buying A Home After An Ohio Divorce

Everyone knows that getting a mortgage in the current economic climate can be like pulling teeth. Banks have tightened credit requirements and now demand proof verifying all aspects of your financial life. It’s understandable then why people would think that a divorce and all the financial mess they lead to would make buying a house all but impossible. Thankfully, if you want a home there are ways around the problems if you’re willing to follow some advice.

According to a recent Yahoo piece, the key to getting a mortgage after a split is in providing the most full picture of your financial life. You have to assist the bank in understanding your financial situation by showing them your divorce decree, any and all child support obligations and any spousal support payments that go in or out of your accounts. All these things can play a role in whether you will be approved for a loan and it’s best to hand them all over to your banker right away.

The good news if you receive money in the form of child support or alimony is that you can count this income towards what you need to qualify for the mortgage. So long as the income is set to continue for three years then the bank will consider that income stream as part of your application. However, if you are the one making child support or alimony payments, the bank will reduce your borrowing ability as this income cannot be counted towards what you could contribute to your mortgage.

If you were divorced a long time ago you might not realize that the mortgage company will still want to see your divorce decree. Though it may seem surprising given the time that has passed, there’s no statute of limitations on mortgage underwriting and the bank will want to make sure you are not financially on the hook for anything even decades after a split.

If you own a house and are still listed on the mortgage with an ex-spouse you might not think it would be possible to ever qualify for a new mortgage of your own. Fortunately there’s hope. If your divorce decree clearly states that your spouse was given the home in the split and your ex is willing to provide documentation that shows they make the mortgage payments on the property for the past 12 months, then the new mortgage company will omit your ownership from your new application, vastly improving your ability to qualify. Another possibility in cases like this is to explore the idea of having your ex refinance you off of the loan. This way you’re totally in the clear in the event that your former spouse stops making payments.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Is Divorce Keeping You From Buying a Home?,” published at Finance.Yahoo.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Morality Clause In Texas Divorce Case Stops Lesbian Couple From Cohabitating

Lawmakers In Iowa Try To End No Fault Divorce

Morality Clause In Texas Divorce Case Stops Lesbian Couple From Cohabitating

A Texas judge recently issued a surprising ruling saying that a lesbian would not be permitted to continue living in the same house due to a morality clause found in the divorce papers of one of the two women.

Such morality clauses are common not only in Texas, but even seen in some Ohio divorce cases where the parents are worried about exposing children to new romantic partners. The clauses are meant to ensure that parents are legally prevented from bringing future boyfriends or girlfriends over to spend the night while the children are present.

In most instances, the way to bypass this provision is to go ahead and get married to your partner. This works because morality clauses cannot prevent anyone from cohabitating with a spouse. The problem here is that in Texas marriage is not an option for gay couples so the lesbian partners have no way around the strict language contained in the divorce decree.

Judge John Roach heard the dispute regarding the 2011 divorce signed by Carolyn Compton and ordered Carolyn and her female partner, Page Price, to move out of their shared home. The issue was that the two women lived together in a home along with Comptons’ two daughters, something that led Compton’s ex-husband to take the matter to court. Compton’s ex husband argued that the morality clause found in their divorce decree was gender-neutral and said it should be enforced for the benefit of the children.

Compton’s attorney tried to argue that the morality clause was unconstitutional not only for gay couples, but straight divorcees as well. The attorney claimed that the law unreasonably limits parents’ abilities to make decisions for their own lives.

On the surface, the idea behind a morality clause is a good one: to protect children in an Ohio child custody case from a revolving door of romantic partners. It goes without saying that this would be detrimental to the children, though exactly how damaging is difficult to understand.

However, the problem with such morality clauses is that there are far too many loopholes in even the best drafted documents. Further, they cannot stop the children from being introduced to new significant others in a parent’s life, only stop them from spending the night. Finally, the clauses allow yet another intrusion into the lives of a couple who have likely already had intimate details paraded before a room full of strangers.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Texas judge says lesbian couple can’t cohabitate, cites morality clause in divorce papers,” by The Associated Press, WashingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Ohio Child Support Arrearages Resemble Modern Day Debtors Prison

Online Actions Land Two Wisconsin Men In Hot Water