Posted Sunday, February 12th, 2023 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
This is part one of a two-part blog inspired/encouraged by a client whose custody case I tried this week. Throughout the process she found trial
Praising the other parent in a custody trial
Posted Saturday, February 11th, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Miscellaneous, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
The past few years I begun a practice of having my custody clients develop a few solid minutes of testimony praising the other parent. Such
What is “standard visitation” in 2023?
Posted Friday, February 3rd, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
When I first began practicing family law 30 years ago, “standard visitation” was pretty standard. A fit parent who was not the primary caretaker was
The family court’s failure to protect guardians ad litem does not appear to be improving
Posted Tuesday, January 31st, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Over a decade ago I stopped doing guardian ad Litem work and blogged about why. I was tired of ad hominem attacks from unhappy litigants—and
Posted Tuesday, January 17th, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The January 4, 2023, Court of Appeals opinion in SCDSS v. Scott, 438 S.C. 400, 883 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 2023), granted a new trial
Supreme Court remands for new custody trial based on stale record
Posted Wednesday, November 23rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Appellate Procedure, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On November 23, 2022, the South Carolina Supreme Court partially granted a writ of certiorari, and remanded the case of Rossington v. Rossington, 438 S.C.
Maybe you’re simply a bad parent
Posted Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Child Support, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to General Public
A sizable portion of my initial consults are with parents frustrated in achieving their custody or visitation goals in the family court. Often these parents
Why I’m sticking with remote mediations
Posted Thursday, November 17th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Law Practice Management, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Early in the COVID era, the South Carolina Supreme Court authorized mediations using video conferencing. Despite the return of relative normalcy to the operation of
Whose signatures are needed for family court consent orders?
Posted Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In the pre-COVID days, one could typically get temporary orders approved with just the attorneys’ signatures and could almost always get procedural orders approved with
Supreme Court declines invitation to define “supported spouse” in South Carolina’s alimony statute
Posted Thursday, October 27th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
I won’t blog about my own appeals until remittitur issues as I don’t want to be seen as trying to influence the appellate courts (not
