Tag Archives: family law

Look out WebMD here comes ChatGPT!

For years Doctors have enjoyed the saying “I’m sure your WebMD is just as good as my actual M.D….

Self-diagnosing running rampant…

Well now ChatGPT has made everyone a lawyer.

Need a brief in response to a summary judgment motion?

In mere seconds a fully typed, cited and “winning” brief is at your fingertips.

Only, there’s just one problem…

It’s fake! The cites are fake. The rulings are made up and the cases and courts may not even exist.

Recently BigLaw and small firms have been swept up in AI legal malfeasance. It’s making the rounds and the news.

A federal judge has even been the target of an inquiry when a ghost ruling appeared with fictitious parties, fake facts and bad law! The order vanished and was replaced with a corrected one.

So be careful out there. We can no longer believe the news, the internet or our own eyes.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that cites Westlaw and text books, such as Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, with forms.

True Joint Custody Bill Proposed…UPDATE, it’s DEAD

Mississippi Courts have not historically favored Joint Custody. A new Bill would require a presumption of Joint Custody is best for a child, that would have to be overcome if a parent doesn’t agree…

Senate Bill 2484 seeks to amend the current custody statute 93-5-24, as follows: “

(2) * * * (a) (i) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensures the best interest of the child is met.
(ii) The presumption created in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall be rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. A court that does not award joint custody with equally shared parenting time shall document the reasons for deviating from the presumption.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one (1) parent.”

This is an interesting Bill and in theory how Custody determinations should begin anyway. However, it goes further than current law in creating a rebuttable presumption and then requiring documenting the reasons for deviating from the presumption if the court does not grant joint physical custody and/or equally shared parenting time.

Read more about the current law and Physical Custody here.

Read more about Legal Custody here.

Matthew Thompson is a child custody lawyer and believes mom and dad coparenting and working together is what’s best for the child. A set schedule based on the child, with flexibility when warranted is what is best…

Child Testimony, the Court and YOU

A child testifying is an often discussed issue between parents and attorneys in child custody cases.

When parents are getting a divorce the child usually knows more than their parents think. The child most likely witnessed fights, bad conduct and sometimes even dangerous conduct.

In Mississippi law, the leading authority is Jethrow vs. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270 (Miss. 1990). This case lays the groundwork that the Court should use when assessing child testimony. The basic premise is, as follows;

  • A child witnesses of tender years*, 12 and under for testimony purposes, testifying is subject to the discretion of the Judge. (*this tender years is different than the “tender years” doctrine favoring a mother when a child is very young, under 2-3).
  • Before allowing such testimony the Judge “should satisfy himself that the child has the ability to perceive and remember events, to understand and answer questions intelligently, and to comprehend and accept the importance of truthfulness.”

Before excluding the testimony of a child witness of tender years in a divorce proceeding, the chancellor at a minimum should follow the procedure required by Crownover v. Crownover, 33 Ill.App.3rd 327, 337 N.E.2d 56 (1975):

  • The first hurdle is whether the child is competent to testify.
  • The Judge should confer in camera (meaning in the Judge’s chambers/office) with the child and determine whether or not the child’s testimony should be heard
  • The Judge has considerable discretion in conducting proceedings of this type, meaning it’s a judgment call.
  • The court should not, however, reject outright proposed testimony of a child in custody proceedings, where the omission of such crucial testimony might be harmful to the child’s best interests.
  • The trial court should take great pains to have an in camera conference with the child to determine the competency of the child,
  • and determine the competency of any evidence which the child might present.
  • The court should determine whether the best interests of the child would be served by permitting her to testify, or
  • Whether the child should be sheltered from testifying and being subjected to a vigorous cross-examination.
  • The Judge should report the essential material matters developed at the in camera conference on the record.
  • The Court should state the reasons for allowing or disallowing the testimony of the child, and
  • The Court should note the factual information which the court developed from the conference with the child which would be considered by the court in its ultimate determinations in the case.

Generally, the testimony of a child called as a witness in a divorce case should not be excluded for reasons other than competency, or evidentiary defects, or for the protection of the child. (24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, A 415). There should not be a summary refusal to inquire as to the competency of the child to testify and also of the competency of the proposed testimony of such child in a change of custody proceeding.

imgres.jpg

“We reiterate that parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so except in the most exigent cases. The reason and wisdom behind this precaution need no amplification. We also hold, however, as we must that no parent can be precluded from having a child of the marriage in a divorce proceeding testify simply because of that fact.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990)(emphasis added).

A child testifying should be avoided, however if it cannot be avoided the above process will likely be used by the Court to determine if and how the child will testify.

Matthew Thompson is a Child Custody Litigation Attorney in Mississippi.

Two Family Law BILLS Died in Committee

Mississippi legislation kicked around 2 significant ideas for changes in Family Law. Both failed to become law in the State.

This “was the year” for Irretrievable Breakdown, Mississippi’s answer to No Fault Divorce.

In MS, you do NOT have a right to a divorce. You either have to have fault grounds that you can prove to the satisfaction of the Chancellor or have an agreement with your spouse to ALL issues. 48 other states have a No Fault Divorce process. MS does not.

Thirteenth. Upon application of either party, the court may
grant a divorce when the court finds there has been an
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts
at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best
interests of the parties or family.

Secondly, a Joint Custody bill was proposed. There were several iterations of this legislation, but the gist of it was that the Court was to assume that Joint Physical Custody was in the best interest of the child when parents could not agree (and, even if they could) and if the Court found Joint Physical Custody was not in the best interest of the child it had to state why. (There were some issues with the proposed legislation as it was drafted, but this Bill found some traction and was discussed and bandied about for weeks…ultimately to no avail).

(2) * * * (a) There shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a
preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared
parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If the court
does not grant joint custody and/or equally shared parenting time,
the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which
maximizes the time each parent has with the child and ensuring the
best interest of the child is met.
(b) Upon petition of both parents, the court may grant
legal and/or physical custody to one parent.

Both bills failed and there are limited changes to MS Family Law. A blog for another day.

Matthew Thompson is a Family Law Attorney in MS and is in favor of some common sense changes in Mississippi Law.

5 Rules for Testifying.

I recently presented and attended several CLEs. It’s a great way to learn new things and be exposed to differing points of view.

Today’s gem comes from Jon Powell. Jon’s a great attorney in Rankin County. Here’s Jon’s 5 Rules for Testifying.

  1. Listen to the question.
  2. Think about your answer.
  3. Answer only the question asked.
  4. Stop talking once answered.
  5. Tell the Truth.

Great advice!!

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney that always appreciates great advice!

(601)850-8000

http://www.BowTieLawyer.ms

Leave a clever Comment…Win a Yeti.

You do NOT have to Like it, Share it or Tag a Friend, but you do have to leave a clever comment/ family law blog idea to WIN!

IMG_2932

This contest is entirely subjective. My office will compile the comments/ideas and pick a winner. You then can retrieve your YETI Hopper. *(Bow Tie not included).

Examples:

Go! Comments may be left on FaceBook or the Blog comment section.

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS IN FAMILY LAW

Please see our article appearing in this month’s edition of The Mississippi Lawyer magazine. It’s reproduced below for your convenience.

cover-ms_lawyerfall2016_344x445.jpg

Many times we have clients call regarding a divorce and have common misconceptions because “that’s what they have heard.” Just because your friend’s neighbor went through a divorce does not mean that what they experienced applies to your case. Also, as all cases are uniquely different, your case is not guaranteed to be like theirs.

I’m filing for a no fault divorce. Mississippi is not a true “no fault” state. At this time, one party cannot file for a no fault divorce in Mississippi. Both parties may file for a divorce on Irreconcilable Differences, keyword “both” parties. This filing is usually a Joint Complaint for Divorce, which also requires that both parties have entered into an Agreement for the custody, support and maintenance of the minor child(ren) and the settlement of all property rights.

An affair means you can’t have custody. False. When determining custody, the Court relies on the Albright factors. Albright vs. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss 1983). One of the factor is the moral fitness of the parents, this is where the Court could consider any fault or misconduct on the parties. The court has stated “marital fault should not be used as a sanction in custody awards.” Carr, 480 So.2d at 1123. Where both parties engage in extramarital affairs, neither should get the benefit of a finding of moral fitness. Fulk v. Fulk, 827 So.2d 736, 740(¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2002).

A court should determine custody and the best interests of the child by looking at the following factors:

  1. Age of the child.
  2. Health of the child.
  3. Sex of the child.
  4. Continuity of care prior to the separation.
  5.  Which parent has the better parenting skills and the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care.
  6. The employment of the parent and the responsibilities of that employment.
  7. Physical and mental health and age of the parents.
  8. Emotional ties of parent and child.
  9. Moral fitness of the parents.
  10. The home, community and school record of the child.
  11. The preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law. (Must be at least 12, and it’s ONLY a preference)
  12. Stability of home environment and employment of each parent.
  13. Other factors relevant to the parent-child  relationship.

The woman always gets custody. False. Miss. Code Ann. §93-5-24(7) states: “There shall be no presumption that it is in the best interest of a child that a mother be awarded either legal or physical custody.” Some lawyers may be screaming at this article, “what about the tender-years doctrine??” In Rosser v. Morris, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision of the mother being granted custody and during an analysis of Albright stated, “Although the tender-years doctrine was ” significantly weakened” by section 93-5-24(7), ” there is still a presumption that a mother is generally better suited to raise a young child.” Passmore v. Passmore, 820 So.2d 747, 750 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), 135 So.3d 945 (2014). The lower court found that since the father had played an active role in changing diapers, bath times, and games that the factor of the age, health and sex of the child favored neither parent.

Once a child is twelve, he/she can decide where they want to live. This is simply not true. When making a custody determination the Court considers ALL of the Albright factors. The applicable statute, Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-11-65(1)(a) (Supp.2006), states ” the chancellor may consider the preference of a child of twelve (12) years of age or older as to the parent with whom the child would prefer to live in determining what would be in the best interest and welfare of the child. The chancellor shall place on the record the reason or reasons for which the award of custody was made and explain in detail why the wishes of any child were or were not honored.”  (Emphasis added.) Phillips v. Phillips, 45 So.3d 684 (2010). One of the factors includes the preference of the child over the age of 12, but this one factor alone does not carry the day. The child’s preference is not outcome determinant. Holmes v. Holmes, 958 So.2d 844, 848 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) That being said, as a child reaches certain, more mature ages, the Court may be more inclined to adopt the child’s preference.

“Take you to the cleaners” Mississippi is an equitable distribution state. Equitable distribution does not mean 50/50, but it also does not mean 100/0. The court has laid out several factors known as the “Ferguson Factors” when it comes to equitable distribution. Ferguson vs. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928-9 (Miss. 1994).  The enumerated factors are as follows:

  1. Substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property (Mopping it Up in a Divorce, click for explanation).Factors to be considered in determining contribution are as follows:
    • Direct or indirect economic contribution to the acquisition of the property;  
    • Contribution to the stability and harmony of the marital and family relationships as measured by quality, quantity of time spent on family duties and duration of the marriage; and
    • Contribution to the education, training or other accomplishment bearing on the earning power of the spouse accumulating the assets.
  2. The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital asset(Marital Waste; Don’t Spend Money on Your Girlfriend).and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise.
  3. The market value and the emotional value of the assets(Sentimental Value can be Valuable) subject to distribution.
  4. The value of assets not ordinarily,absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution (Sentimental Value can be Valuable), such as property brought to the marriage by the parties and property acquired by inheritance or inter vivos gift by or to an individual spouse;
  5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution;
  6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties;
  7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity; and,
  8. Any other factor which in equity should be considered.

Mississippi is not an alimony state. Mississippi is an alimony state. The court has laid out several factors known as the “Armstrong Factors” when determining whether or not alimony is appropriate. Armstrong vs. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993).

It is important to note the Court has directed that alimony is to be used after an equitable distribution of the marital estate. If the court finds that the needs of both parties are met and there is no disparity with the distribution of the marital estate, the court does not consider alimony.

1)      The first factor is the income and expenses of the parties.  When there is a great disparity in the earning capacity and incomes of the parties it could support an award of Alimony.

2)      The second factor is the health and earning capacities of the parties.  This considers physical and mental health, as well as earning capacity, to include degrees, etc…

3)      Third, the court is to consider the needs of each party.  The living expenses.

4)      Fourth, the court is to consider the obligations and assets of the parties.  Is the marital estate encumbered by a significant  debt?  Is a party living off his credit card?

5)      The fifth factor to consider is the length of the marriage.  Less than 10 years is not long.  20 years and over is long.  Between 10-20 is the gray area.  Of course, it’s all gray and it’s possible to get alimony in very short marriages and not get it in very long marriages.

6)      The sixth factor is the presence or absence of minor children in the home.

7)      The seventh factor is the age of the parties.  Think years left for gainful employment and to live…

8)      The eighth factor is the parties’ standard of living, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination.  Have the Parties  enjoyed a relatively high standard of living in comparison to most? Allowing them to take trips, to purchase recreational vehicles, to purchase a half a million dollar home in the suburbs, to send their children to private school, and have not had to be concerned about money or curb their spending during times when husband was not working?

9)      The ninth factor to consider is the tax consequences of the spousal support.   Alimony payments, normally,would be taxable income to the receiver and deductible to the payor, allowing her to receive a tax benefit in the reduction of her taxable income for the duration of the support payments.  It’s also possible to make it non-taxable, depending upon the duration of the payments and whether same is owed in the event the payor dies.

10)  The tenth factor is fault or misconduct.  Fault grounds; adultery, cruelty, etc…

11)  The eleventh factor is wasteful dissipation of assets by either party.  Booze, drugs, or gambling spending.

12)  The final factor for the court’s consideration is any other factor deemed by the court to be “just and equitable” in connection with the setting of spousal support.  So any other compelling reason in favor of alimony.

After weighing each of the factors set forth in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993), and viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court will find whether an award of alimony is warranted.

The man has to provide health insurance. False. At first I thought this was a joke, but I have heard it enough times to include it in this list. There is no authority that a male is required by law to provide health insurance. This usually comes up in child support issues. Miss. Code Ann. §43-19-101 (6) states:

(6) All orders involving support of minor children, as a matter of law, shall include reasonable medical support. Notice to the obligated parent’s employer that medical support has been ordered shall be on a form as prescribed by the Department of Human Services. In any case in which the support of any child is involved, the court shall make the following findings either on the record or in the judgment:

(a) The availability to all parties of health insurance coverage for the child(ren);

(b) The cost of health insurance coverage to all parties.

The court shall then make appropriate provisions in the judgment for the provision of health insurance coverage for the child(ren) in the manner that is in the best interests of the child(ren). If the court requires the custodial parent to obtain the coverage then its cost shall be taken into account in establishing the child support award. If the court determines that health insurance coverage is not available to any party or that it is not available to either party at a cost that is reasonable as compared to the income of the parties, then the court shall make specific findings as to such either on the record or in the judgment. In that event, the court shall make appropriate provisions in the judgment for the payment of medical expenses of the child(ren) in the absence of health insurance coverage.

            If we have joint custody, that means I do not have to pay child support. False. Child Support can still be awarded within the Chancellor’s discretion under the statute. Chancellors can evaluate the expenses of the child, the difference in wage and earning capacity of the parties’ to determine whether child support would be appropriate.

            Common misconceptions abound and include more than just the topics included here. Friends and the internet can be a valuable resource, but they can also be dangerous to rely upon. Instead, rely upon your attorney. Ask the question even if you think you know the answer. Do not let these Family Law faux pas trip you up.

By Matthew Thompson & Chad King

Matthew Thompson & Chad King are attorneys with Thompson Law Firm. If you have questions regarding a Family Law matter, or any other legal issue, you may call to have your questions answered or for an appropriate referral at (601)850-8000.

Ask for Help.

All too often we ask for help too late or not at all.

gallery-thumbnails
Stuart Miles /freedigital photos.net

The sentiment in family law that you can work it out and that even though the papers say one thing, but we are really going to do another is foolhardy. The papers say what they mean and mean what they say. The idea that you cannot afford an attorney so why bother asking is dangerous. In many instances you cannot afford to be without an attorney. the details matter.

Asking for help is not a sign of weakness or that something is wrong with you.  I use a professional CPA. I hire persons who are professionals in their field when I need those services.  You should do the same when it comes to dealing with Family Law.

Also, in our personal lives it’s okay to ask for help. Counselors, preachers and others with particular skills, training and life experiences can serve you well. However, it does not help if you do NOT ask for help.

Matthew Thompson is a family law  attorney  and knows you know when to ask for help and encourages you to please do so.

Follow the blog:#BowTieLawyer Visit the website: #Thompson Law Firm  You may also contact Matthew with your family law matter or question at (601) 850-8000 orMatthew@bowtielawyer.ms