If you don’t know what the “right” legal answer is, do what’s “right,” and you’ll be fine.
-Matthew Thompson
Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in Mississippi. That is all.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms
Hiring a Non-Family Lawyer for your Family Law Case May NOT be Best. I am not disparaging Car Wreck attorneys, except to the extent that they should not be taking on a contested divorce case unless they know what they are doing.
All too often I find myself dealing with a client’s divorce after the fact. After they had a non-family law attorney “handle” it for them. It is NOT pretty.
There is a misconception among attorneys that regardless of anything else, you can always do Divorces and Wills. This claim has shown true, especially in the economic climate we are currently experiencing. There is a glut of “divorce” attorneys who aren’t.
The benefits of having an experienced attorney handle your matter are countless. An experienced attorney knows the ins and outs of the law, knows the particulars of the local judges, and knows the other attorneys that practice in the area. This knowledge and experience is INVALUABLE. Additionally, experience is the best teacher. Practicing family law for close two decades, or longer, is always advantageous to 1) having studied domestic relations in law school and 2) helped your neighbor’s cousin in his divorce.
Want to know that you are being represented and represented well, get an attorney experienced in the area of law you need. Want your divorce to be a Car Wreck, hire a Car Wreck attorney.
Matthew Thompson is an experienced family law attorney in Mississippi and would hire a car wreck attorney to handles his car wreck case, not a divorce.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000
Never, never, never give up.
– Sir Winston Churchill
I recently concluded a 3 year, 4-day, custody trial. The matter began 3 years ago on an emergency basis, removing custody of a child from one parent, due to their conduct, and placing custody with the other parent.
The matter took three years because it was in two different Courts; Youth Court and Chancery Court. There was a lawyer change about a year into the matter and it took some time to have the matter transferred from one Court to the other.
There were Orders regarding pyschological evaluations and parenting classes and requirements of completing those processes. Also, the delay benefited the party that had emergency custody, so having it concluded sooner was not a huge priority. It also took a long time to get to the trial setting. It was set months in advance but due to the Court docket being backed up it was not quick. Also, when the matter was not finished on the day set for trial, you do not just go back the next day, you get another setting months down the road.
This, however, is by no means a standard time frame, but it does happen. During the three years both parties wavered on pursuing the matter to the end, on compromising and just giving up. But, perseverance prevailed. Justice prevailed and the Court ultimately ruled on Custody and what was in the best interest of the child.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and can attest that perseverance can win the race.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.
War Stories are the fun, awful, tough and unique occurrences that lawyers and parties in litigation get to experience and live to tell about it. At water coolers and break rooms throughout the world lawyers regale anyone who will listen about that time they…(this series will include a few of my own).
Facts: This was an initial Child Custody case, which means the Court must consider the Albright Factors. Dad had temporary custody due to prior child neglect allegations against mom. Mom was required to pay child support pursuant to this Order. Mom called her mother (Grandmother) to testify to corroborate that mom is good, dad is bad, and custody should be with mom.
On direct examination, that is when mom’s attorney was questioning grandmother, she did fine. She said mom was good, dad was bad for reasons including; he was not around and did not support the child, and that the child should be with mom.
On cross-examination, that is when I get to ask questions, the tone changed. From the jump Grandmother was defensive and combative. This was a mistake on her part. She should have stayed calm and exuded confidence, not anger. Even if she had to fake it.
Upon questioning about the neglect allegations grandmother downplayed them as a misunderstanding and had a story which completely excused mom’s conduct. The problem was there had already been 3 prior witnesses which contradicted this, one of whom was mom! Certainly they had to have had a discussion prior to court.
Next, grandmother took dad to task for “not supporting” the child, but her only “proof” was anecdotal. Nonetheless, she concluded he was no good because he was not supporting them and she knew this because mom told her so. Grandmother changed her tune about a parent being no good for not supporting the child however, once my questioning revealed mom had not paid child support in months, though ordered. It was different for some reason, but she could not be explain how.
Lastly, Grandmother had no real complaints about dad’s care-giving the last several months when he had custody and reluctantly admitted the child was doing well. She was also extremely evasive about mom’s new beau and that person’s involvement with the child. It was obvious she was trying to avoid giving that testimony.
Grandmother should not have testified. She added nothing and ended up undermining mom’s case. The only way to have known this would have been to thoroughly prepare her for direct and cross-examination and taking the time to view the case from both parties’ perspectives.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and assesses your case from your perspective, as well as how the other side may approach it.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms
I have previously blogged on the Mississippi Legislature, a.k.a. “the hissing possums” thanks to SNL, possibly taking action on proposed Child Support changes. One such change was passed and will be in effect as of July 2013.
Senate Bill 2338 sought to increase the income levels that the child support guidelines are applied. Child Support is a statutory amount on income. (Child Support, What you Owe). If your income was between $5k -$50k per year, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), the guidelines applied and the Court computed what you owed. The new law increased the income range to $10k-$100k per year, AGI, for the Court to base Child Support. MCA 43-19-101(e)
Currently, if you make $50k per year support for one child would be around $585. This figure is 14% of $50k. From there the Court could skew it upwards based on the needs of the child or if you made higher income, if appropriate. So, your obligation could range from $585 -$1,200 per month, give or take, depending on your AGI income. The law change makes the 14% apply directly to all sums over $50k up to $100k. So, support on $100k AGI would be $1,166.00 per month. As stated prior, this change likely just keeps higher wage-earner’s support in line with what they are already paying and is not a substantial change, as the Court could always deviate upward, or downward, if warranted.
I think the “possums” got it right and this change, while in practical effect is not too significant, does address in some respects the low rates nationally that MS is known for. H/T to Judge Primeaux’s blog, 12th Chancery Court District of MS.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and reminds you to pay your child support and pay it often.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000
“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Oh, I have heard the stories that so-and-so did it and “won,” but that is the exception and not the rule. Family law cases are hard to manage anyway, much more so if you don’t know what you are doing and if your judgment is clouded by high emotions. I have seen many a Pro Se client just do awful.
Pro Se is the term the Courts use. It is Latin, meaning “for oneself.”
Lawyers have specific training and education regarding Court rules, rules of evidence and procedure. Legal matters require things be done in a certain fashion or they are not valid. Lawyers, usually, have experience with that particular area of the law and the Judge handling the matter.
I was involved in a case where the father, representing himself, sued the mother for interfering with his visitation, according to him. He filed the suit, had her served and got a Court date. Oops! He did it wrong. After filing, he should have gotten the Court date, had a summons issued (the correct summons by the way, a Rule 81 Summons in this instance) and then had the mother served. Because he did it wrong it, he could not get the relief he was seeking and had to do it over. In the meantime, mom met with her attorney, who asked the right questions. It turns out dad was well behind on his child support and that the child and the father had a significant altercation which prompted the visits to stop. Now, mom was armed with a lawyer, the law and filed against dad. Ultimately, dad was held in contempt for non-payment of support. He had to pay mom’s attorney fees and once the Judge heard about the altercation between the child and father, he ordered anger management counseling for dad and restricted visitation until dad re-petitioned the Court for visitation, after completing the counseling. I like to think that if I had represented dad it would have been a different outcome or perhaps dad could have tried to resolve things without Court involvement. He should have had an attorney. Click here for blogs on “Do I Need an Attorney?” & “How do I Find an Attorney?”
Representing yourself is about the worst thing you can do in a divorce and custody case!
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and thinks it wise to see an attorney before you try to represent yourself, and to not do it even after that.
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law Firm
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@wmtlawfirm.com.
I will be mediating a family law case, or rather agreeing to mediate a divorce, custody and property division case in the near future. Mediation is a process whereby the parties agree to meet and attempt to resolve all issues prior to going to trial or without having to go to trial.
In a mediation the parties agree to hiring a third-party, typically another attorney or retired judge, to “hear” their case. Now the mediator is NOT the main authority. In fact, the mediator cannot compel either of the parties to do or agree to anything. The mediator’s role is to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each sides case and to try to find common ground. Sometimes the mediation is based on reason and logic and sometimes it is based on emotion or just some number someone is trying to reach. Almost anything can be mediated, though a rule of thumb is to not mediate when not prepared factually, legally (research wise), or with an abuser.
Pros:
Cons:
Mediation is not a silver bullet to end litigation. It is just another implement in the tool box of resolving and litigating cases.
Is mediation right for you? Almost any matter can be mediated. Speak to your attorney for more information.
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and believes in the mediation process, though it may not be right in every situation.
There is an old joke that the only sure things in life are death & taxes. Even in divorce you still have to worry about death and taxes.
Death: I have had several pending cases ended by death. In one instance my client’s spouse died very suddenly of an accident. It ended a contested divorce and custody case that had been progressing very slowly and not particularly amicably. While the divorce and custody issues were over, it created new issues with the deceased spouse’s family. Grandparent visitation issues and intestacy issues arose, since the spouse died without a will (intestate). This made the surviving spouse and children equal beneficiaries. This was something the deceased’s side of the family was not to keen about.
I was also involved in a case where the non-custodial parent got custody of the children when the custodial parent died after the case was “over.” They had been divorced for a few years. But upon the custodial parent’s death the children when back to the surviving parent.
Death does not end the issues you have with the other parent or former spouse. I know a lot of divorcing spouses may think it will solve all of their problems if that so-and-so would just die, but it could leave your children without their other parent. It can create issues with the former in-laws, who now may be pursuing their rights of grandparent visitation. It can create financial uncertainty as support obligations end at death, usually, and there might not be insurance or enough insurance.
Be careful what you wish for…
Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that hopes your case is not prolonged or shortened due to the death of your attorney. (Taxes will be the subject of another riveting post).
Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer
You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 