Child Support

South Carolina Supreme Court’s Suspension of Family Court Rule 24 for Title IV-D Cases

Posted Sunday, July 29th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

Two different family law attorneys have asked–nay demanded–that I blog about the July 19, 2012 South Carolina Supreme Court Administrative Order suspending application of South

A new front in the battle of the sexes

Posted Sunday, July 8th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity

A recent scientific breakthrough allows the paternity of an unborn child to be determined through a blood test of the mother as early as the

For second consecutive week Court of Appeals reverses and remands family court order due to inadequate factual findings

Posted Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific, Visitation

Last week, in Tillman v. Oakes, 398 S.C. 245, 728 S.E.2d 45 (Ct. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a family court custody

Pay your support early

Posted Thursday, May 31st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants

Typical language in South Carolina support orders is: The obligor shall pay support directly to the obligee.  If the obligor is ever more than five

Defending false allegations of untimely support payments

Posted Friday, December 2nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

Counseling clients to pay support by having their bank mail the support check can be a useful prophylactic for defending false claims of late payments.

Unpublished opinion (doesn’t) make(s) new law on application of Schedule C guidelines

Posted Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

Floyd v. Morgan, 383 S.C. 469 , 681 S.E.2d 570 (2009) is possibly the worst published family law opinion to come out of the Supreme

One hundred things I don’t know about South Carolina family law

Posted Monday, November 14th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity, South Carolina Specific

This blog is inspired by myriad important family law issues that current South Carolina case law and statute don’t adequately answer.  None of these questions

In opinion with numerous oddities, Supreme Court approves active/passive approach to valuing marital property

Posted Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

In the October 31, 2011 opinion in Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 717 S.E.2d 757 (2011), the South Carolina Supreme Court finally ratifies the passive

Should parents ever agree to court-ordered college support in South Carolina?

Posted Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific

Even before Webb v. Sowell, 387 S.C. 328, 692 S.E.2d 543 (2010), overruled Risinger v. Risinger, 273 S.C. 36, 253 S.E.2d 652 (1979), and held

United States Supreme Court finds that indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel for child support civil contempt proceeding but still vacates South Carolina Supreme Court judgment of civil contempt

Posted Monday, June 20th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, United States Supreme Court Decisions

The June 20, 2011 United States Supreme Court opinion in Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 (2011), will radically alter the way the South Carolina Family Court