Where should one enforce a support order when the obligor resides elsewhere?
Posted Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A common dilemna in family law is enforcing a support order when the obligor no longer resides in the issuing state. There are two reasonable
Is it really better to beg forgiveness than ask permission?
Posted Saturday, October 29th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Early in my career one of my most trusted mentors would counsel me when I asked her about filing a motion or complaint in the
Should custody be dealt with in a separate order?
Posted Thursday, October 27th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I recently completed a divorce case in which all issues other than child custody settled in the middle of trial. With the court’s permission, I
Once trial starts the attorney is the director and the litigant is merely an actor
Posted Wednesday, October 26th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I was recently preparing for a trial with a litigant who was filled with good ideas but wanted to be the medium to express all
Court of Appeals vacates removal and TPR orders due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Posted Tuesday, October 18th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Jurisdiction, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the October 10, 2016 opinion in SCDSS v. Tran, 418 S.C. 308, 792 S.E.2d 254 (Ct.App. 2016), the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated
The more things change…. (ode to the Fish House Punch)
Posted Wednesday, October 5th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
1732 Philadelphia: A gentlemen’s boating club on the Schuylkill River is planning its annual Christmas party. For the first time in its history ladies will
“Can I do something” is rarely the right question to ask
Posted Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants
A common question I, and I suspect many attorneys, get asked are variations of “can I....?” A common variation of that question, almost always asked
WTF is irreconcilable differences?
Posted Thursday, September 22nd, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
A friend and colleague of mine suggested I blog about Angelina Jolie’s recent filing for divorce from Brad Pitt on the ground of “irreconcilable differences,”
Are Sully’s views of masculine emotional intimacy outdated?
Posted Tuesday, September 13th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Book, Film or Music Reviews, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
Clint Eastwood’s just-released Sully clearly admires its titular character, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, played by Tom Hanks. It presents Sully as an icon of competence, integrity,
Five years of litigation, all for naught
Posted Saturday, September 10th, 2016 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Pity poor Lori Stoney, a fellow member of the Charleston County family court bar, and the appellant in the July 27, 2016 Court of Appeals
