Which Home for the Holidays?

Its that time of year again! I'm not speaking of inappropriately early to arrive Christmas commercials and Toy books, I'm talking about holiday custody disputes.

For families that have separated, or are separating, deciding on holiday custody arrangements can be difficult. Below are some thoughts from an experienced child custody attorney on how to work through these issues.

With Thanksgiving arriving in just two (2) weeks, and Christmas, Hanukkah and a host of other holidays just around the corner, I wanted to recirculate my previous holiday post, updated slightly. Though another year may have passed, it rings just as true.

On the Simpsons, Helen Lovejoy is often quoted as saying, “Will someone please think of the children?”

I think this is a particularly appropriate sentiment during the holiday season. For families who have not been “intact” for some time or others who are going through a transition, often the stress of the holiday season, coupled with the additional stress of new living circumstances, makes the holidays particularly trying.

I find clients who are transitioning to their new lives find the first holiday season to be particularly difficult. Everyone faces stresses associated with the holidays in the form of decorating, baking, buying presents, making merry and balancing budgets. Those facing the new world of contemplating whose Christmas festivities the kids will attend and what holiday traditions can survive the transition have it particularly hard.

To those of you who have already worked through these issues, and who know exactly what you will be doing this holiday season, where the kids will be over their break, etc., I commend you on the efforts that had to go in to finalizing these arrangements and making peace with the new schedule.

To those of you who are just facing these challenges for the first time, I wanted to share some thoughts.

1) Helen Lovejoy was right. We should be thinking of the children. The holiday season, Thanksgiving and Christmas break…these are magical moments for them and getting bogged down in the stress or fights over exactly how they will be spent detracts from that magic. Even if you are not so foolish as to try and discuss these issues with your children (which is hopelessly inappropriate), your stress still shows and they’ll still pick up on it. First off, never, ever, ever talk to your children about difficulties that you’re having making holiday arrangements, or tell them you’re sad that they won’t be there with you Christmas morning or anything of the like. They’re your children, let them stay that way. The world is going to do enough to disavow them of their innocence and hope; don’t speed up the process.

2) Do talk to somebody. Separation and divorce are incredibly stressful and emotionally painful experiences. Going through them alone and maintaining some degree of self and sanity is nearly impossible. Talk to your friends. Talk to your family. Talk to your priest. Talk to your therapist. Talk to somebody. Anybody—(except your children). You can talk to your lawyer, too, but it’s best that you rely upon them for some education on your legal rights and responsibilities and not the emotional issues. We bill at a higher hourly rate than therapists and we’re never covered by insurance.

3) You should talk to your co-parent. Now that you’ve talked out some of the emotional pain that goes with trying to navigate these new issues, it’s time to talk to somebody else, and that’s the other person, the person with whom you’re sharing custody of your children, not just for this holiday season, but for the rest of your lives. The sooner you can work out a schedule for how holiday custody will work and where the children will be over their break, the sooner you can close this chapter and move forward with actually enjoying the holiday season.

Not everyone can talk through their issues in a reasonable, productive manner. They may have to turn to lawyers or to the Courts for help. Let me assure you of two things:

1) There is emergency Motions Court on December 22nd which will be filled with almost nothing but last minute motions trying to resolve Christmas custody disputes; and

2) You do not want to be there.

Please make the effort at resolution. If you can’t talk it through between yourselves, perhaps you can try mediating, or having your attorneys negotiate, but I assure you, you do not want to be litigating where your child eats dinner or opens a gift.

Divorce or separation from the parent of your children will be hard. Nobody can make it easy. Talking to the right people, learning the right information, and addressing your outstanding disputes in a timely manner will make it easier.

There is no cure for the hurt, but there are many proactive things you can do to try to minimize how that impacts you and your children and how you navigate the co-parenting relationship moving forward.

In all likelihood, you will share custody of your children. It’s almost a guarantee that you will share custody on the holidays. It will be necessary to make new traditions and work on moving forward. The better you do that, the more positive lessons you teach your children about how to work with others, to manage your emotions and hurt, and to move forward in a responsible manner. As I said above, life will do plenty to eat away at your children’s innocence and hope. Don’t help it. What you’re doing now is teaching them the skills to deal with those upsets that will happen in their own lives.

Teach them well and enjoy the holiday season.

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com

Same Sex Divorce - What we know So Far

Two years ago today, on May 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled in the case of in Whitewood, et al., and determined that same sex marriage would now be recognized in the courts of Pennsylvania.  As of that date, despite the fact that it was not yet nationally recognized, the state of Pennsylvania determined that they would extend the right of marriage to same sex couples throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

The opinion issued by the court, which is linked below, (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/13-1861.pdf) went on to state that Pennsylvania, in addition to recognizing same sex marriages performed within our state, would also recognize same sex marriages from other states.  This would mean that any same sex couples would have all of the rights, and also the responsibilities, that came with traditional marriage, including, though not specifically enumerated in the opinion, the right to divorce.

It would be more than a year later, specifically on June 26, 2015, until the Federal Courts, by way of the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, would determine in that these rights should be extended nationwide. It seemed that this very emotional, complicated issue of same sex marriage had been rather succinctly resolved by the courts. 

However, neither the Supreme Court’s opinion nor the State of Pennsylvania’s opinion spoke much about same sex divorce.  The fact of the matter is that most people do not generally enjoy discussing divorce.   Thus, it is probably not a great surprise that when issuing this ground changing legal precedent, that the issue of what happens when a same sex marriage ends never made its way into the courts’ opinions.  Same sex divorce, however, has made its way into our courts, and with it comes a host of novel issues which have yet to be resolved through either legislation or through court precedent. 

In the case of a same sex marriage, one of the most difficult questions to determine is what is the actual date of marriage?  The actual date that the same sex couple became a legally recognized couple has been subject to a fair amount of argument in this burgeoning area of law.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation:

Let’s say we have same sex couple who met in Pennsylvania in the early 1990’s, dated for a period of time, and began living together in 1994.  Then, in 2005, the couple traveled out of state to New Jersey to obtain a civil union and then returned to Pennsylvania.   

On exactly May 25, 2014, just a few days after the Pennsylvania court’s May 20, 2014 decision, the couple decided to become legally married in Pennsylvania. And on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court said they were married in all 50 states now.

 Then, in May of 2016, the couple separated.

So When Did They Get Married??

The federal government has only recognized same sex marriage for a period of eleven months, but Pennsylvania’s May 20, 2014 ruling allowed this couple’s marriage vows to take place in Pennsylvania on May 25, 2014, and be legally recognized and recorded like any other marriage. 

However, the hypothetical couple’s civil union in New Jersey began ten years prior to their legal marriage in Pennsylvania.

 Further, the date they began to reside together as a couple, in 1994, predates their legal marriage by another decade. 

There is no real answer to this question yet; because there is no prevailing case law, the question remains to be answered.

Did the couple marry on June 26, 2015, when the Supreme Court recognized same sex marriage?  Probably not. 

The states have the right to afford greater protections and rights to their population than those afforded by the federal government.  Basically, the federal government’s rules and rights, etc., are your baseline.  The states have a fair amount of latitude to expand upon those federal laws, and considerably less latitude to infringe upon them.  As such, June 26, 2015 would not be the couple’s date of marriage, given that Pennsylvania’s right to issue an earlier ruling on same sex marriage occurred on May 20, 2014. 

Did the couple marry on May 25, 2014, after the Pennsylvania Courts ruled in the case of Whitewood?

This date was when the Pennsylvania Court recognized same sex marriage and permitted the issuing and recording of same sex marriage licenses.  However, in the case of our hypothetical couple, they were together for more than twenty years prior to the state’s ruling.  Does that count for anything?  The case of Whitewood also gave full faith and credit to marriages occurring in other states stating “and already married same sex couples shall be treated as such.”  

So did this couple’s marriage begin in 2005, since they obtained a civil union in New Jersey? 

This date may not be right either because in Whitewood, it states that there will be full faith and credit to “already married” same sex couples.  It does not say civil unions, and it does not say domestic partnerships.  If one looks to the laws of New Jersey, they have, at various points in time, recognized domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same sex marriages.  Each of these is a separate legal animal, and none of them automatically converts to the other. 

So…can Pennsylvania give full faith and credit to a New Jersey civil union, and treat that as the date of marriage?  Maybe.  Some courts have done this, though I think a technical reading of Whitewood does not extend that far, which leaves this issue unresolved.

Finally, did the hypothetical couple potentially marry back in 1995, when they began living together?  Again, this is a maybe. 

Historically, Pennsylvania recognized common law marriage, i.e. people are married if they held themselves out to the world as “husband and wife.”  Obviously in this case we are talking about “husband and husband,” or “wife and wife,” so is it possible that it should still hold true?

While the divorce code amendments of 2005 directed that common law marriage would no longer be recognized going forward, there was no prohibition on looking back on common law marriages that came into effect prior to the 2005 amendments.  

Is this perhaps what should be happening with same sex marriages?  Maybe.  But again, the fundamental issue is this: Is it even possible for two people to hold themselves out in a husband and wife like manner, when the right to be husband and husband, or wife and wife, did not exist for them?  Heterosexual couples who decided to act as husband and wife, but not solemnize their marriage, had this other option.  With same sex couples, this option did not exist.  Again, this would only be applicable in a situation where the parties’ relationship predated the 2005 divorce code amendments, and the relationship existed for a duration of more than ten years.

What happens with relationships that existed for less than ten years?  This is an excellent question, because nobody knows for sure at this point.  Many arguments have been made that the courts (in their efforts to effectuate economic justice), should look to the period of time that the parties were in a relationship, but not yet in a legally recognized marriage.  Of course, this opens the can of worms for heterosexual couples who had resided together for long periods of time prior to actually getting legally married to argue the same thing.  However, there is a factual and a legal argument to be made that the two are not analogous, since the heterosexual couples would have had the right to get legally married had they so chosen.

So when did they get married? 

Over the years, I am sure this area of law will continue to develop and ebb and flow, but for now, there are a lot of unanswered questions.  We will keep you posted as new case law begins to develop, which hopefully will not take very much longer.

If you have found this post to be interesting, please feel free to share it, and to like my page.  I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Thank you.

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com

DIVORCE - Making Ours Mine - Division of Assets in Pennsylvania

One of the issues that comes up in all most every divorce and in many separations is how to divide property that parties acquired during their relationship.  Unfortunately, if this relationship was not a marriage, it can be very difficult to figure out how to distribute jointly titled vehicles, homes, and other assets and it may involve numerous separate actions to address these items. 

If the parties who are uncoupling were married, the Divorce Code sets forth well-established rules and guidelines for how to divide those assets that they acquired during the marriage through a process that we call “equitable distribution.”   Many clients I meet with are surprised to learn that, in Pennsylvania, assets are not divided equally.  While they may be, it is not an edict that everything is distributed 50/50.  The court engages in an analysis of numerous different factors to determine what division would be equitable under the circumstances and tries to “effectuate economic justice between the parties.”

What does that mean?

I recently came across a very good quote out of Miller v. Miller, 783 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super 2001) which describes it as follows:

“The methods by which divorcing parties effectuate economic justice are familiar and well settled.  The process of equitable distribution is an exercise in martialing, valuing and dividing the marital pot in a fair manner.  Not every piece of property can or should be split in half.  Sometimes one spouse is entitled to more property than is the other.  In some instances, the sale of property must occur so that each spouse can receive his/her rightful amount.  In other instances, a spouse may be allocated a specific item of property and the other spouse will receive cash or credit for his/her share in that same item.

In all of these scenarios, whether the property division is done by an agreement of the parties or a Court Order, the goal is the same: to take the assets of the marriage and divide them in such a way as to effectuate economic justice between the parties.” 

So, what have we learned from the above quote? 

Frankly, we learn a lot from this little quote. First off, there are a lot of ways to “skin the cat.”  Not only will no two people’s cases play out exactly the same (so just because it happened in your buddy’s divorce doesn’t mean it is going to happen in yours), but it may also be that no two assets in the marital estate are divided the same. 

The courts do not go through the list of marital assets and divide every single one 50/50. 

One asset may be offset against another, i.e. “you are keeping the house, so I am keeping the checking account.”

Or some assets may warrant being skewed more in favor of one party than the other.  So, your overall division of the marital estate might be 50/50 but somebody might get 70% of the fair market value of the property that they inherited two years before separation but retitled in joint names (see my prior post with regards to the “Transmutation of Assets”).  Since the other side didn’t really do anything to generate this asset, this skew in favor of the inheriting party may seem more “just” to the Court.

As stated in the above Miller quote, a big part of the equitable distribution process is to identify the assets and liabilities that are in the marital estate and determine their values.  If you don’t know all of the assets or their values, you may need to engage in discovery, which is a topic I am sure I will get around to discussing at some point.  Thereafter, the Court would move forward with dividing these assets in a manner that seeks to effectuate economic justice. 

It is also important to note that it is well within the authority of the Court to order you to sell off your belongings.  While they are generally not looking to have you fire sale every item you have acquired in the course of your marriage, it may be necessary for a piece of the marital estate to be sold.   Simply because one party may desire to retain an asset, if it is not economically feasible, it may be ordered to be sold by the Court, even over your objection.  

All of the above issues will depend upon the Court’s analysis of what we call the “equitable distribution factors” set forth in the Divorce Code. There are twelve different factors that the Court can take a look at to decide the fairest way to divide assets between the parties.  They may look at the length of marriage, the incomes of the parties, one party’s contributions to the marital estate as a homemaker, what separate assets either party might have beyond the marital estate, etc. 

The Court’s analysis of these factors as applied to the specific facts of each individual case dictate how the Court fashions its award for equitable distribution, which, as stated, may be an equal 50/50 division, but may not.  Again, like with all matters that fall into the Family Court, the determinations that are rendered are usually very fact specific and the change of one of the characteristics about a party or their marriage may have a significant impact on how the marital estate is most equitably divided.

Again, if you are contemplating divorce, for more particular guidance with regards to how your marital estate may be divided, you should consult with an attorney who can review the history of your marriage and the assets that comprise the marital estate to provide you with more specific advice unique to your situation.

If you found this article to be helpful, I ask that you please share it and “like” my page.  As always, if anyone has any questions or suggestions for follow up topics, please comment below. 

www.uncouplingpittsburgh.com