Could a different priority on custody factors lead to reduced acrimony between estranged parents?
Posted Sunday, September 20th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
In Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973), authors Anna Freud (Sigmund Freud’s daughter), Joseph Goldstein and Albert Solnit recommend that in a typical
Seeking criminal contempt for denied visitation
Posted Sunday, September 20th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
A few months ago I prosecuted a rule to show cause in which the mother had refused to let my client (her ex-husband) take the
The problematic jurisprudence of uncitable appellate opinions in the internet era
Posted Friday, September 18th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
Why should appellate courts be able to overrule or alter the decisions of lower courts? Why should they have the authority to make important and
Supreme Court holds that waiver of adultery’s bar to alimony does not violate public policy
Posted Monday, August 31st, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The South Carolina Supreme Court decision in Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 682 S.E.2d 804 (2009) corrects an obvious injustice, holding that a written agreement between
Posted Friday, August 28th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
Obviously events have overtaken the content of this blog. I sometimes feel like this blog jinxed Tiger. The greater point that involving our children in
Does procedural due process mandate testimony at family court temporary hearings in South Carolina?
Posted Thursday, August 27th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Our Supreme Court is confused and conflicted on testimony at family court temporary hearings. Rule 21(b), SCRFC (a rule promulgated by the Supreme Court) states, “ [e]vidence
Posted Thursday, August 27th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
South Carolina is not a community property state (in community property states all marital property is divided equally). However, in practice, with long-term marriages the
A new day in child support agreements
Posted Monday, August 24th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
N.B. The holding of Floyd v. Morgan that it took a higher burden of proof to modify support agreement was subsequently overruled in the case of Lewis v. Lewis,
Posted Monday, August 24th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
I received a call from a prospective client recently. While every situation has its unique aspects, the details were depressingly familiar. Married after a short
Court of Appeals offers much guidance on relevant factors in alimony reduction cases
Posted Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The August 19, 2009 Court of Appeals decision in Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 684 S.E.2d 191 (Ct.App. 2009) offers the family court bar much guidance in
