Posted Thursday, December 19th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Argued first but decided second, the December 18, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Singh v. Singh, 429 S.C. 10 , 837 S.E.2d 651 (Ct.App.
Tomlinson continues the appellate disfavor of joint custody
Posted Wednesday, November 13th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The November 13, 2019, Court of Appeals opinion in Tomlinson v. Melton, 428 S.C. 607, 837 S.E.2d 230 (Ct.App. 2019), continues the appellate court’s disfavor
Posted Wednesday, November 6th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Many family law attorneys in the Charleston area were awaiting the Court of Appeals decision in Singh v. Singh, which was argued there this February.
Jurisdiction shopping while pregnant
Posted Sunday, November 3rd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I recently handled a marital dissolution case in which my client had hightailed it while pregnant to another state. Her husband’s motion for temporary relief
Posted Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The October 30, 2019, South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Bazen v. Bazen, 428 S.C. 511, 837 S.E.2d 23 (2019), would be interesting if it
The guardian’s questionnaire is additional interrogatories
Posted Tuesday, September 17th, 2019 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
While not thought of as such, the guardian’s questionnaire is akin to additional (child-custody related) interrogatories. As an example, the current questionnaire of a local
The interaction of the De Facto Custodian statute and the Moore factors
Posted Thursday, June 13th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
There are numerous recurring issues in South Carolina family law that ultimately will need to be resolved by our appellate courts. One of the more
Court of Appeals affirms an unusual and detailed custody arrangement
Posted Friday, May 10th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The May 8, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74 828 S.E.2d 773 (Ct. App. 2019), finds the Court of
What are you communicating with your proposed parenting plan?
Posted Thursday, January 31st, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In 2012, South Carolina revised its child custody statutes and added a provision requiring proposed parenting plans at temporary hearings. This parenting plan asks each
Whose “morality” dictates what is in the best interests of the child?
Posted Friday, January 25th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
South Carolina case law from as recently as May 2018 holds that the morality of a parent is a proper factor for consideration in custody
