Thanks for visiting our blog site. Sorry we missed you, but we've moved to the Washington Family Law Reporter's website. Click here and be instantly transported! Our new location allows us to bring the WFLR family to one site with more features, including blog posts. We encourage you to stop by.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Fox, Esq.
President, Catalyst Publications, Inc.
Washington Family Law Reporter ™
Domestic Relations Information and Updates
Friday, October 4, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Plain Language Forms
Trying
to make sense of the legal system, particularly as it deals with family law
issues? Well, the barriers to comprehension are slowing coming
down. For a long time the process was cloaked in Latin,
but with few exceptions that's pretty much gone. When mandatory
forms arrived it was with the best intentions, i.e. present users a series of
options to check and provide some consistency to the myriad of documents.
However, while those forms may be understandable to attorneys who work them
everyday, the occasional visitor to family law still finds them confusing.
On January 5, 2012 Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, writing on behalf of the
Washington State Supreme Court, announced the creation of the Access to Justice
Board’s Pro Se Project Forms Review Work Group. Justice Letter of Support. The purpose of the Group is to convert
mandatory domestic relations forms to "plain
language".
Presently the Group has converted 75 forms, with 15 new conversions announced
this summer. While these forms are expressly in draft form only, some
version of them will eventually be coming to a courthouse near you. The forms are located at: Domestic Relations Plain
Language Forms.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Collaborative Law
By unanimous vote in both the Senate and House, the Washington State Legislature passed SB 1116, legislation that adopts the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA). The law took effect July 28, 2013.
Here's the legislative summary:
Here's the legislative summary:
The Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA) is adopted and applies to collaborative law participation agreements signed on or after the effective date of the act. The use of collaborative law only applies to matters that would be resolved in civil court and may not be used to resolve matters in criminal cases.
Some of the principal features of the UCLA include:
- The Collaborative Participation Agreement
- The Authority of Tribunal During Collaborative Law Process
- Concluding a Collaborative Law Process
- Responsibilities of Collaborative Lawyers.
- Disqualification of Collaborative Lawyers
- Confidentiality and Privileges of Collaborative Law
- Communications Standards of Professional Responsibility
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Washington State Legislature: Domestic Relations Bills
The following bills, under the topical heading of "Domestic Relations" have been introduced in the Washington State Legislature. Each bill has a link to the Legislature's website for more information and a status report. The two bills addressing child support schedule and residential credit have been highlighted.
Abduction of child by parent,
educating parents concerning harmful effects: HB 1021
Child
support, child support schedule work group recommendations: HB 1027, SHB 1027
Child support, collections, reporting payments to independent contractors: SB 5552
Child support, enforcement services, provision for recipients of subsidized or working connections child care: SB 5157, SSB 5157
Child support, noncompliance-based suspension of fishing and hunting licenses, violations of suspension: HB 1218, SB 5137
Child support, noncompliance-based suspension of licenses, sending notice to responsible parent: HB 1227
Child support, residential schedule adjustment for support obligation determinations: HB 1694
Child support, revising uniform interstate family support act to include foreign support orders: HB 1118
Child support, support obligation credit for veteran's benefits paid for veteran's child: HB 1145
Child support, vehicular homicide due to alcohol or drugs, offender to pay support for victim's children: HB 1151
Child support, collections, reporting payments to independent contractors: SB 5552
Child support, enforcement services, provision for recipients of subsidized or working connections child care: SB 5157, SSB 5157
Child support, noncompliance-based suspension of fishing and hunting licenses, violations of suspension: HB 1218, SB 5137
Child support, noncompliance-based suspension of licenses, sending notice to responsible parent: HB 1227
Child support, residential schedule adjustment for support obligation determinations: HB 1694
Child support, revising uniform interstate family support act to include foreign support orders: HB 1118
Child support, support obligation credit for veteran's benefits paid for veteran's child: HB 1145
Child support, vehicular homicide due to alcohol or drugs, offender to pay support for victim's children: HB 1151
Family and medical leave insurance
program, implementing by amending provisions of family leave insurance program:
HB 1457, SB 5292
Family coordinators in schools,
funding allocation: SB 5117
Family leave insurance program,
repealing family and medical leave insurance act: SB 5159
Home visiting and parent and
caregiver support, department of early learning to reserve funds for: HB 1723
Indecent liberties, modifying
definition to include spouses: HB 1108
Marriage, dissolution after making a
will, adding stepchild of former spouse to provisions: SB 5067
Marriage, dissolution, encouraging
reconciliation and nonadversarial approaches through family second chances act:
SB 5614
Marriage, dissolution, harmful
effects of parental child abduction during custody disputes: HB 1021
Marriage, dissolution, mediation for
parenting plan issues: HB 1353
Marriage, dissolution, residential
provisions for children of military parents: HB 1107
Marriage, solemnizations of,
authorizing without requiring certain judges and elected officials to perform: HB 1589
Marriage, solemnizing by tribal
court judges: HB 1083
Marriage, solemnizing by tribal
court judges and administrative law judges: SHB 1083
Parent with founded finding of child
abuse or neglect, work group to consider creating certificate of suitability
for parents who have turned their lives around: SB 5565
Parentage, adjudication of, public
inspection of judicial proceeding documents and pleadings: HB 1446, SB 5135
Rape, third degree, modifying
definition to include spouses: HB 1108
Stillbirth, certificates of,
issuance by county registrar to mother or father: HB 1137
Support, child and spousal, revising
uniform interstate family support act to include foreign support orders: HB 1118
Uniform interstate family support
act, revising to include foreign support orders: HB 1118
Visitation, sibling visitation after
dependency proceedings dismissed or concluded: HB 1140
Visitation, third-party, conditions
and procedures: HB 1506
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Prenuptial Agreements
Who has a prenuptial agreement? The rich and famous: Tom Cruise, Donald Trump, Andrew Carnegie,
to name a few. But many folks who fly
under the celebrity radar also have them, or at some time will consider them. Courts in Washington have reviewed them for
many years, and a December 31, 2012 opinion by the Division One Court of
Appeals is the most recent pronouncement.
Here’s a link to the opinion which provides interesting reading about
the factual circumstances and the judicial review. Keller v Estate of Keller
The Court took the opportunity to recite a few general principles. “Prenuptial agreements are
contracts subject to contract law, but also subject to special rules formulated
by the legislature and the courts. In re Marriage of Burke, 96 Wn. App.
474, 477, 980 P.2d 265 (1999). The
parties to a prenuptial agreement are unique, because they do not deal with
each other at arm's length. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d at 301. Their relationship is one of mutual
confidence and trust which calls for the exercise of good faith, candor and
sincerity in all matters bearing upon the proposed agreement. Id. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is
based on the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement. In re
Marriage of Bernard, 165 Wn.2d 895, 904, 204 P.3d 907 (2009).”
The husband/widower’s estate sought to
uphold the prenuptial agreement. One of
its arguments was that the wife/ widow waived any objection by “ratifying” the
agreement over the years. The Court
disagreed. “We rely on the reasoning in
Flannery, Crawford, and Hollett in holding that a prenuptial agreement that is
substantively and procedurally unfair is void from the inception and is
incapable of ratification.”
The wife/widow also asserted the
agreement was unfair, which prompted the Court to recite the law: "A prenuptial agreement is
substantively fair if it provides a fair and reasonable provision for the party
not seeking enforcement of the agreement.
In re Marriage of Matson, 107
Wn.2d 479, 482, 730 P.2d 668 (1986). If
it is substantively fair, the inquiry ends.
Id. If it is substantively
unfair, then the court considers whether it is nevertheless procedurally
fair. Id. at 482-83. To determine
whether a prenuptial agreement is procedurally fair, we consider (1) whether
there was full disclosure by the parties of the amount, character, and value of
the property, and (2) whether the agreement was entered into freely and
voluntarily, upon independent advice, and with full knowledge by both spouses
of their rights. Id. at 483. Thus, a
prenuptial agreement is valid if it is either substantively fair or
procedurally fair. The party seeking to
enforce the agreement has the burden of proving its validity. Crawford,
107 Wn.2d at 496."
The wife/widow claimed that a
short period of negotiation was a reason to invalidate the agreement, but the
Court wasn’t receptive to the argument. "Donna claims that the
negotiation process was "wholly inequitable and per se fatal to the
agreement," because of the short period of time that passed between the
date of the proposal, the date the prenuptial agreement was signed, and the
date of the wedding. Specifically, she
asserts that she and Ken married 17 days after Ken's proposal, 13 days after
the mediation, 8 days after Donna first saw the prenuptial agreement, and 5
days after she signed the prenuptial agreement.
But, issues of timing are relevant only to the extent they inform
whether the agreement was entered into freely and voluntarily, upon independent
advice, and with full knowledge by both spouses of their rights. There is nothing inherently fatal about
signing a prenuptial agreement five days before the wedding."
Next on the wife/widow’s list of complaints
was that her attorney hadn’t provided effective legal counsel so the agreement
should be thrown out. That argument
didn’t work either.
"First, we cannot say that
effective independent counsel is required when independent counsel is not even
required in all cases. Matson, 107 Wn.2d at 483. The Washington Supreme Court has stated that,
in some circumstances, a requirement for independent counsel would be arbitrary
and unnecessary. Id. The precise standard
should be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Id. Likewise, counsel's
presence at any mediation or negotiation is not a prerequisite to procedural
fairness. Here, the parties to the
prenuptial agreement decided to negotiate the terms of the agreement with a
professional mediator without the presence of counsel. They negotiated further with the benefit of
independent counsel and revised the agreement after the mediation. The fact that counsel was not present at the
mediation is not a valid basis to find that the prenuptial agreement is
procedurally unfair.
Second, Donna's proposed
subjective test for effective assistance is untenable. The procedural fairness test directs us to
consider "'whether the agreement was entered into fully and voluntarily,
upon independent advice, and with full knowledge by [both spouses of their]
rights.'" Id. at 483 (alteration in original) (quoting Witney v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 90 Wn.2d 105, 110, 579 P.2d 937
(1978)). Accepting Donna's argument
would require us to separately consider whether there was competent independent
advice and whether there was full understanding of those legal rights. A prospective spouse could not have
confidence that an agreement was valid without inquiring into, weighing, and evaluating the adequacy of the other spouse's independent
counsel. To do so would eliminate the
independence of that independent counsel and require an invasion of
attorney-client privilege. In addition
to evaluating the independent counsel's performance, the prospective spouse
would have to inquire into the other spouse's actual understanding of the legal
issues. Otherwise, in any subsequent
challenge, the challenging spouse would only have to assert that her counsel
failed to mention a legal right or that she lacked full understanding of her
legal rights to defeat an assertion of procedural fairness.
Knowledge of one's legal rights
is a conclusion that flows from the opportunity to obtain independent counsel.
Donna had that opportunity in this case.
She obtained independent counsel, participated in a mediation in which
counsel was not present for either side, and her attorney negotiated on her
behalf for revisions after the mediation. It is not a requirement that she
attain a lawyer's understanding of the nuance of family law. Our inquiry is not
whether she failed to understand her rights or whether her counsel failed to adequately
inform her. It is sufficient that she
had adequate opportunity to consult independent legal counsel.
A spouse who receives ineffective
assistance during prenuptial negotiations and is not made fully aware of her
legal rights may have a claim against her attorney, but she does not have a
basis to invalidate the prenuptial agreement itself. To the extent that our decision in Bernard
conflicts with this conclusion, we decline to follow it."
Read into this case and situation what you
will, but, for sure, prenuptial agreements are complex, complicated and very
significant legal contracts.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
HB 1027 & Residential Support Credit
While Representative Moeller's HB 1027 has many notable features it does retain the existing "deviation" language regarding residential credit in lieu of the Work Group's recommendation to implement the "Indiana Credit Formula" (page 23 and Appendix XI of Work Group Report).
The following is an excerpt drawn from the Parenting Time Credit section of the Indiana Child Support legislation.
The following is an excerpt drawn from the Parenting Time Credit section of the Indiana Child Support legislation.
Analysis of
Support Guidelines.
The Indiana Child Support Guidelines are based on the assumption the child(ren)
live in one household with primary physical custody in one parent who
undertakes all of the spending on behalf of the child(ren). There is a rebuttable
presumption the support calculated from the Guideline support schedule is the
correct amount of weekly child support to be awarded. The total amount of the
anticipated average weekly spending is the Basic Child Support Obligation (Line
4 of the Worksheet).
The Guideline support schedules do not
reflect the fact, however, when both parents exercise parenting time,
out-of-pocket expenses will be incurred for the child(ren)’s care. These
expenses were recognized previously by the application of a 10% visitation
credit and a 50% abatement of child support during periods of extended
visitation. The visitation credit was based on the regular exercise of
alternate weekend visitation which is equivalent to approximately 14% of the
annual overnights. With the adoption of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines,
the noncustodial parent’s share of parenting time, if exercised, is equivalent
to approximately 27% of the annual overnights. As a result, these revisions
provide a parenting credit based upon the number of overnights with the
noncustodial parent ranging from 52 overnights annually to equal parenting
time. As parenting time increases, a proportionally larger increase in the
credit will occur.
Analysis of
Parenting Time Costs.
An examination of the costs associated with the sharing of parenting time
reveals two types of expenses are incurred by both parents, transferred and
duplicated expenses. A third category of expenses is controlled expenses, such
as the 6% uninsured health care expense that remains the sole obligation of the
parent for whom the parenting time credit is not calculated. This latter
category is assumed to be equal to 15% of the Basic Child Support Obligation.
Transferred
Expenses. This
type of expense is incurred only when the child(ren) reside(s) with a parent
and these expenses are “transferred” with the child(ren) as they move from one
parent’s residence to the other. Examples of this type of expense are food and
the major portion of spending for transportation. When spending is transferred
from one parent to the other parent, the other parent should be given a credit
against that parent’s child support obligation since this type of expense is
included in the support calculation schedules. When parents equally share in
the parenting, an assumption is made that 35% of the Basic Child Support
Obligation reflects “transferred” expenses. The amount of expenses transferred
from one parent to the other will depend upon the number of overnights the
child(ren) spend(s) with each parent.
Duplicated
Fixed Expenses.
This type of expense is incurred when two households are maintained for the
child(ren). An example of this type of expense is shelter costs which are not
transferred when the child(ren) move(s) from one parent’s residence to the
other but remain fixed in each parent’s household and represent duplicated
expenditures. The fixed expense of the parent who has primary physical custody
is included in the Guideline support schedules. However, the fixed expense of
the other parent is not included in the support schedules but represents an
increase in the total cost of raising the child(ren) attributed to the
parenting time plan. Both parents should share in these additional costs.
When parents
equally share in the parenting, an assumption is made that 50% of the Basic
Child Support Obligation will be “duplicated.” When the child(ren) spend(s)
less time with one parent, the percentage of duplicated expenses will decline.
Controlled
Expenses. This type of expense for the child(ren)
is typically paid by the custodial parent and is not transferred or
duplicated. Controlled expenses are items like clothing, education, school
books and supplies, ordinary uninsured health care and personal care. For
example, the custodial parent buys a winter coat for the child. The
noncustodial parent will not buy another one. The custodial parent controls
this type of expense. The controlled expenses account for 15% of the cost of
raising the child. The parenting time credit is based on the more time the
parents share, the more expenses are duplicated and transferred. The
controlled expenses are not shared and remain with the parent that does not get
the parenting time credit. Controlled expenses are generally not a
consideration unless there is equal parenting time. These categories of
expenses are not pertinent for litigation. They are presented only to explain
the factors used in developing the parenting time credit formula. The
percentages were assigned to these categories after considering the treatment
of joint custody by other states and examining published data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)