Perverts versus pedophiles: Can the South Carolina family court tell the difference?
Posted Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
I happily represent a number of parents in family court whom the general population would label perverts. Perhaps this is a result of my
An unanticipated use for the guardian ad litem’s periodic billing statements
Posted Friday, October 8th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
As part of the private guardian ad litem statute, “[t]he guardian ad litem must submit an itemized billing statement of hours, expenses, costs, and fees
We are raising our grandchildren’s parents
Posted Thursday, October 7th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Child Custody, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
One of my insights in the second family law article I ever had published was“[a]lways recognize (and remind your client) that a custody case is
The difference between a guardian investigating and a guardian recommending
Posted Monday, October 4th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Guardians Ad Litem, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A few weeks ago I was appointed guardian in a private case. An attorney for one of the parents, who had never worked with me
Seeking paternity testing and joint custody
Posted Wednesday, September 15th, 2010 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, Paternity
While nothing in the law prohibits it explicitly, I’ve never understood how attorneys can counsel their male clients to demand DNA paternity testing, especially for
Lessons in imputed income from the Court of Appeals
Posted Wednesday, September 1st, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Have some sympathy for Family Court Judge Leslie K. Riddle, whose decision in the case of Marchant v. Marchant, 390 S.C. 1, 699 S.E.2d 708
Calling bullsh*t on custodial parents who let the children decide their visitation
Posted Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Visitation
When I first started practicing family law I would encounter a number of visitation enforcement hearings in which the custodial parent tried to excuse his
Posted Thursday, July 29th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The July 28, 2010 Court of Appeals opinion in High v. High, 389 S.C. 226, 697 S.E.2d 690 (Ct. App. 2010) presents little new analysis of
Posted Sunday, July 4th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Custody, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
It is my experience that most family law attorneys in South Carolina reflexively file a motion for temporary relief when filing a contested family court
Not publishing opinions to save the trial court embarrassment
Posted Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
I have been a past critic of the South Carolina Court of Appeals’ failure to publish opinions that do not meet the criteria of S.C.
