For additional information on the upcoming modifications to the IPTG, please visit the following link:
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-adopt-changes-to-parenting-time-guidelines/PARAMS/article/30480
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Ex-Husband Order to Pay Child Support for Children Conceived from Sperm Donor
The following articles discusses a recent Court ruling wherein the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's order that the Ex-Husband of a woman pay child support for children conceived by a sperm donor during their marriage. According to the article, there is a dsipute between the parties as to whether or not Husband consented at the time of conception. The woman performed the procedure without the assistance of a doctor.
For the full-text article, please visit:
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS/301160330/Court-Ex-husband-must-support-artificially-conceived-kids
For the full-text article, please visit:
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130116/NEWS/301160330/Court-Ex-husband-must-support-artificially-conceived-kids
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Kim Kardashian - Baby on the Way But Still Married to Kris....
Below
is the link to an article outlining recent developments in Kim Kardashian’s and
Chris Humphries’ divorce proceeding. Currently, based on the
parties’ respective legal positions, there is speculation that the hearing on
the final dissolution may not occur until June 2013 – which is also very near
Kim’s due date. As many know, Kim is expecting a child with Kanye
West. Kim is allegedly “frustrated and angry,”
at the prospect of giving birth to a child while married to another man.
Its no wonder. Aside, from personal concerns, legally (and while we at H&Z practice divorce ONLY under Indiana law and therefore cannot advise as to what may occur in the state they have filed for divorce) – if
these parties were divorcing in Indiana and there was no final dissolution by
the time Kim were to give birth, under Indiana law the child would be presumed
to be a child of the marriage. Thus, the basis to push for the finalization of the divorce prior to the child's birth. This is due to the law defining who is presumed
to be a child’s biological father. Under Indiana law, Kris would be presumed to
be the child’s father if:
(1) the child was born during the marriage; or
(2) the child was born not later than 300 days after the marriage is terminated by dissolution.
See Indiana Code Section 31-14-7-1.
(1) the child was born during the marriage; or
(2) the child was born not later than 300 days after the marriage is terminated by dissolution.
See Indiana Code Section 31-14-7-1.
Of
course this is a rebuttable presumption. However, under Indiana law, should the
issue be left unaddressed, there could be implications affecting each party’s rights.
Namely, the presumption may lead to a right of either party to orders regarding child
support and parenting time. While it may be unlikely for such an outcome to occur, this fact scenario is a prime example of an instance where the law leads to bizarre results.
For
a full-text version of the article, please visit the following link:
At Hollingsworth & Zivitz, P.C., our
team has the experience, the understanding, and the compassion to assist with
your family law needs. If you have questions or concerns regarding divorce,
custody, support, or any other family law concerns contact our firm at
317.DIVORCE or visit our website at
www.hzlegal.com.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Noncompliance with the Decree or Court Order
In most, if not all family law cases, the
finalization of the divorce/case does not mean that all matters related to the
case have concluded. Rather, the entry of a Court Order finalizing the matter
is only a Court decision (or approval of an agreement) as to how all matters related
to the case will be handled. Each Court
Order contains provisions which must then be enforced in order to effectuate
the decision. In many cases all
provisions are carried out without issue.
However, in the event either party fails to comply with the terms of the
Court Order, mechanisms exist to gain an individual’s compliance.
The Court can intervene after a party alleges
noncompliance by the opposing party. Such an action can be initiated by
filing a Motion for Rule to Show Cause (commonly referred to as a “contempt”
motion) notifying the Court of the issue.
If the Court finds that the actions of one of the parties rises to the
level of a contempt citation, a variety of penalties exist to punish the past
actions and encourage future compliance with the Court Order. Parties would be well-advised to seek the
advice of counsel in determining how to best proceed with the enforcement of a
Court Order as the remedies vary based upon the issue presented as well as the
nature of the non-compliance itself.
Enforcement of Child Support. Pursuant to
Indiana Law, there are potential civil and criminal penalties for the nonpayment
of child support; failure to make support payments can have serious
ramifications. If the prosecutor chooses to go forward with criminal
proceedings, the charges can rise to a Class C Felony, punishable by 2-8 years
in prison conceivably, for the nonpayment of support in excess of a
statutorily-defined amount. As the payee of a support order, you may request the
Court exercise its power to hold the child support payor in contempt. This can result in a variety of potential
orders, including that the contemptor pay the other parent’s attorney’s fees
for any and all costs associated with maintaining or bringing the action; order
that the contemptor perform community service; issue a warrant for the
individual’s arrest for failure appear to show cause for the nonpayment of
support; suspend the individual’s driver’s license; intercept tax refunds to pay
against past-due support; and attach interest to a delinquent support balance. In exceptional cases, the Court can
incarcerate a non-payor of support; however, rarely are parties jailed when
found to be in civil contempt. Frequently, this is counter-productive as that
person stands to lose their employment and become further delinquent on his/her
child support payments.
Be aware,
however, that the Court must consider whether the acts of the non-payor are
willful; if the circumstances under which this person is not paying are beyond
their control, the Court may not believe a contempt citation is proper.
Enforcement of Real Estate / Property Issues. If an unpaid obligation remains from a
divorce, in lieu of seeking remedies as a contempt action, another option to
explore would be to obtain a money judgment against an opposing party and
enforcing it through regular collections proceedings. However, this change from divorce obligation
to money judgment, generally, removes the contempt aspects and simply turns the
debt into money with statutory interest and the ability to collect through wage
and bank garnishments. Obviously, when
the terms of the decree are not strictly financial, the option to convert to a
money judgment is not appropriate. For
example, if the parties agree to refinance a mortgage into one party’s name and
that person subsequently does not qualify for the same, the third party (the
creditor) cannot be ordered to comply with the Court Order. Therefore, the
remedy requested will likely be to modify the terms of the Decree, and not to
find the party in contempt. Additionally,
issues exist when a party is unable to sell a home within a set timeframe due
to the issues in the housing market, effectively frustrating the intentions of
the divorce decree but not through the fault of either party such that a
contempt award would be proper.
Self Help. One common (and tempting) misnomer is to
withhold parenting time as a response to a failure of the other parent to pay
child support or that one party may withhold child support due to the other
parent’s failure to allow for regular parenting time. Such actions risk the
wrath of the Court – these are issues for which consultation with counsel is
imerpative. Before undertaking anything
that a Court could deem violative, all the risks associated with this must be
considered. are inappropriate and deemed
“self help” by the Courts. It is imperative that parties in family law cases
understand that only the Court may enter sanctions for a violation of Court
Order. Further, one party retaliating against the alleged contemptor will not
likely bode well in front of the Judge.
At Hollingsworth & Zivitz, P.C., our
team has the experience, the understanding, and the compassion to assist with
your family law needs. If you have questions or concerns regarding divorce,
custody, support, or any other family law concerns contact our firm at 317.DIVORCE
or visit our website at www.hzlegal.com.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)